食管癌调强放疗中摆位误差对剂量学的影响

目的通过电子射野影像装置(EPID)测量食管癌患者在调强放疗过程中的摆位误差,分析摆位误差对靶区和正常组织受量的影响,验证目前计划靶体积(PTV)外放范围的合理性。方法 36例食管癌患者用EPID测量其摆位误差,每位患者接受摆位验证4~6次(1次/周)。在医科达(CMS-XIO)治疗计划系统上模拟实际摆位误差,比较实际治疗过程中大体肿瘤体积(GTV)、临床靶区体积(CTV)和周围正常组织的受照剂量。结果 36例食管癌患者前后、左右、头脚方向摆位误差分别为(2.43±1.80)、(2.56±1.87)和(3.53±2.82)mm。摆位误差使食管癌患者GTV的95%体积接受的剂量(D95)与原治疗计划相比降低了50 c Gy,CTV的D95降低了78.21 c Gy。原计划(P1)和摆位误差计划(P2)的全肺接受20 Gy照射体积占全肺体积的百分比(V20)分别为24.34%和23.52%(P<0.05);心脏平均剂量分别为2 067.23 c Gy和2 021.33 c Gy(P<0.05);P1中无一例脊髓受量超过4 500 c Gy,而P2中12例脊髓最大剂量超过4 500 c Gy,其中1例最大剂量为5 602.70 c Gy。结论摆位误差使GTV、CTV的受照剂量降低,部分患者脊髓最大剂量超过耐受量,双肺、心脏受照剂量有所下降。     

锥形束CT测量胸段食管癌调强放疗摆位误差对剂量学的影响

目的 应用千伏级锥形束CT(kV-CBCT)测量胸段食管癌调强放疗的摆位误差,探讨摆位误差对肿瘤靶体积和周围正常组织受照剂量的影响.方法 21例胸段食管癌患者经图像引导调强放疗,共获得173组CBCT摆位误差数据,利用这些数据在三维治疗计划系统中模拟患者的实际治疗过程,分析摆位误差对肿瘤靶区及周围正常组织受照剂量的影响.结果 21例患者左右、头脚、前后方向的摆位误差分别是(2.73 ±1.85)、(3.19±2.71)和(2.35±1.71)mm.摆位误差对患者GTV的剂量学影响不明显,但误差却使患者95％ PTV( D95％)接受的剂量与标准计划相比降低3.38 Gy,PTV最小剂量(Dmin)和平均剂量(Dmean)分别下降9.83和0.65 Gy,摆位误差的修正提高了计划靶区的适形度和剂量均匀性,标准计划相应值分别为(0.74±0.10)和(1.07±0.02),模拟计划相应值分别为(0.69±0.08)和(1.13±0.07),差异均有统计学意义(t=3.43和-3.91,P＜0.05);摆位误差对脊髓的最大剂量(Dmax)、双肺和心脏等周围正常组织受照剂量影响,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),模拟计划中脊髓的最大剂量均值为(42.20±4.97)Gy,标准计划为(41.37±2.75) Gy,摆位误差使部分患者脊髓最大剂量超过45 Gy,其中1例最大值达到52.8 Gy.结论 kV-CBCT图像引导胸段食管癌调强放疗可减小患者的摆位误差,提高PTV的受照剂量和治疗精度,摆位误差对双肺、脊髓和心脏受照剂量未见明显改变.     

直肠癌术前放疗中三维适形放疗与调强适形放疗的剂量学比较分析

目的 比较三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)与5野、7野调强适形放疗(IMRT)的剂量分布,以探讨IMRT对直肠癌术前放疗的价值。方法 对10例术前新辅助放化疗直肠癌患者,分别设计3D- CRT、5野IMRT、7野IMRT计划,应用剂量体积直方图(DVH),比较3种治疗计划的靶区适形度指数(CI)、不均匀性指数(HI)和正常器官受量。结果 适形度指数(CI)7野IMRT计划＞5野IMRT＞3D- CRT,不均匀性指数(HI)5野IMRT计划＞7野IMRT＞3D- CRT。5野、7野IMRT计划比3D- CRT均可以减少高剂量照射小肠、膀胱、股骨头体积,7野IMRT计划比5野可以减少高剂量照射的骨髓和膀胱的体积。结论 直肠癌术前放疗中IMRT计划在靶区剂量适形度方面均优于3D- CRT计划,对正常组织的保护也存在明显的优势。7野IMRT计划较5野IMRT计划技术有更好的剂量适形度与剂量均匀性。     

直肠癌术前放疗中三维适形放疗与调强适形放疗的剂量学比较分析

Objective To compare the dose distribution of the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy(3D-CRT)and 5-field or 7-field intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT), and to explore the value of IMRT in preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer.Methods Ten rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative combination radiotherapy and chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. 3D-CRT plan and the 5.field or 7-field IMRT plans were performed for each patient.The conformal index (CI),heterogeneity index(HI)of the planning target volume(PTV)and the dose of normal organs of 3D-CRT plan(3D-CRTp)and the 5-field or 7-field IMRT plans(IMRT5fp or IMRT7fp)were analyzed with the dose-volume histogram.Results The CI values of PTV were 0.91,0.87 and 0.78 in IMRT7fpIMRT5fp and 3D- CRT but with IMRT7fp>IMRT5fp>3D-CRTp(t=-5.69、-8.91,P<0.01),respectively.The HI values of PrV were 1.09,1.08 and 1.05 in IMRT5fp,IMRT7fp and 3D- CRTp but with IMRT5fp >IMRT7fp>3D- CRTp(t=3.41、-6.89,P<0.01),respectively.The ratio of dose volume were 0.08,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.79、3.52,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the small intestine V50,with 0.07,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.58、3.40,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D-CRTp on the bladder V50 and 0.01,0.01 and 0.05(t=3.00、3.17,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the fomoral head V45.The ratio of dose volume were 0.31 and 0.38(t=3.91,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on the bone marrow V50,with 0.07 and 0.10 in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on bladder V45.Conclusions IMRT plan is superior to 3 D- CRT plan in dose conformal degrees of PTV with preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer and can significantly protect the normal tissues.The 7-field IMRT plan might be the optimal plan for dose conformal degree and dose uniformity compared with 5-field IMRT.     

直肠癌术前放疗中三维适形放疗与调强适形放疗的剂量学比较分析

Objective To compare the dose distribution of the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy(3D-CRT)and 5-field or 7-field intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT), and to explore the value of IMRT in preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer.Methods Ten rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative combination radiotherapy and chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. 3D-CRT plan and the 5.field or 7-field IMRT plans were performed for each patient.The conformal index (CI),heterogeneity index(HI)of the planning target volume(PTV)and the dose of normal organs of 3D-CRT plan(3D-CRTp)and the 5-field or 7-field IMRT plans(IMRT5fp or IMRT7fp)were analyzed with the dose-volume histogram.Results The CI values of PTV were 0.91,0.87 and 0.78 in IMRT7fpIMRT5fp and 3D- CRT but with IMRT7fp>IMRT5fp>3D-CRTp(t=-5.69、-8.91,P<0.01),respectively.The HI values of PrV were 1.09,1.08 and 1.05 in IMRT5fp,IMRT7fp and 3D- CRTp but with IMRT5fp >IMRT7fp>3D- CRTp(t=3.41、-6.89,P<0.01),respectively.The ratio of dose volume were 0.08,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.79、3.52,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the small intestine V50,with 0.07,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.58、3.40,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D-CRTp on the bladder V50 and 0.01,0.01 and 0.05(t=3.00、3.17,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the fomoral head V45.The ratio of dose volume were 0.31 and 0.38(t=3.91,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on the bone marrow V50,with 0.07 and 0.10 in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on bladder V45.Conclusions IMRT plan is superior to 3 D- CRT plan in dose conformal degrees of PTV with preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer and can significantly protect the normal tissues.The 7-field IMRT plan might be the optimal plan for dose conformal degree and dose uniformity compared with 5-field IMRT.     

老年综合评估状态对老年直肠癌患者放疗摆位误差的影响

目的:探讨老年综合评估(CGA)状态对老年直肠癌患者放疗摆位误差的影响。方法:前瞻性纳入45例≥70岁拟行放疗的老年直肠癌患者,在治疗前对患者进行CGA。45例患者的中位年龄为77岁,男28例,女17例。CGA状态良好组31例,不良组14例;俯卧位放疗35例,仰卧位放疗10例。放疗期间通过锥形束CT(CBCT)进行摆位...     

头颈部肿瘤螺旋断层调强放疗摆位误差和计划靶区分析

目的分析螺旋断层调强放疗系统治疗头颈部肿瘤时MVCT引导下的治疗摆位误差,探讨计划靶区外放范围。方法对25例头颈部肿瘤患者放疗行597次MVCT扫描,通过对MVCT图像与KVCT扫描图像进行自动匹配和手动调节,记录三维方向上的摆位误差值,并对记录数据进行统计学分析,计算If缶床靶体积（CTV）到计划靶体积（PTV）的外放边界。结果X、Y、Z轴移动均数分别为（-0．89±1．85）、（0．76±1．91）、（0．20±1．40）mm、旋转方向上平均误差为（0．26±0．91）。。结论治疗前通过MVCT扫描,获得分次间照射摆位误差并对其加以纠正,能够提高头颈部肿瘤放疗精度,PTV-CTV外放范围X、Y、Z各方向外放5mm能够使处方剂量包绕98％的CTV体积,保证肿瘤区域的放疗剂量准确性和对正常组织的充分保护。     

快速旋转调强与固定射野动态调强在直肠癌术前放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较快速旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定射野动态调强(dIMRT)两种放射治疗技术在直肠癌术前放疗中的剂量学差异.方法 采用两种治疗技术对10例Ⅱ、Ⅲ期直肠癌术前患者设计同步加量治疗计划.处方剂量为GTV 50.6 Gy,分22次;PTV41.8 Gy,分22次,危及器官限量参考临床常规要求.在95%体积的PTV达到处方剂量前提下,比较两种计划的剂量体积直方(DVH)图、靶区和危及器官剂量、靶区剂量适形度、剂量分布均匀性、机器跳数以及治疗时间.结果 RapidArc计划中,GTV和PTV的靶区剂量适形度较高(t=7.643、8.226,P＜0.05);而靶区剂量均匀性略低于dIMRT(t=-10.065、-4.235,P＜0.05).RapidArc计划中大、小肠的平均受量显著低于dIMRT计划(t=2.781,P＜0.05).膀胱平均受照剂量略低于dIMRT,股骨头的平均受量略高于dIMRT,但差异无统计学意义.RapidArc计划机器跳数减少48.5%,平均治疗时间节省79.5%.结论 RapidArc与dIMRT计划在直肠癌术前放射治疗的剂量学上无明显差异.RapidArc每次治疗时间明显缩短,减少了治疗期间患者非主观运动引起的误差,总的机器跳数降低,减少了正常组织照射.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between RapidArc and fixed gantry angle dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) in developing the pre-operative radiotherapy for rectal cancer patients.Methods Two techniques,RapidArc and dIMRT,were used respectively to develop the synchronous intensity modulated plans for 10 stage Ⅱ and Ⅲ rectal cancer patients at the dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) of 50.6 Gy divided into 22 fractions and planning target volume (PTV) of 41.8 Gy divided into 22 fractions.Both plans satisfied the condition of 95% of PTV covered by 41.8 Gy.The dose-volume histogram data,isodose distribution,monitor units,and treatment time were compared.Results The two kinds of dose volume histogram (DVH) developed by these two techniques were almost the same.The conformal indexes of GTV and PTV by RapidArc were better than those by dIMRT (t =7.643,8.226 ,P < 0.05),while the homogeneity of target volume by dIMRT was better (t =-10.065,-4.235 ,P <0.05).The dose of rectum and small bowel planned by RapidArc was significantly lower than that by dIMRT (t =2.781 ,P <0.05).There were no significant differences in the mean doses of bladder and femoral head between these two techniques.The mean monitor units of RapidArc was 475.5,fewer by 48.5% in comparison with that by the dIMRT (924.6).The treatment mean time by RapidArc was 1.2min,shorter by 79.5% in comparison with that by dIMRT (5.58 min).Conclusions There is no significant dosimetric difference between the two plans of RapidArc and dIMRT.Compared with dIMRT,RapidArc achieves equal target coverage and organs at risk(OAR) sparing while using fewer monitor units and less time during radiotherapy for patient with rectal cancer.     

鼻咽癌调强放疗中摆位误差的变化趋势：基于千伏级锥形束CT的前瞻性研究

【摘要】目的：基于千伏级锥形束CT（kV-CBCT）分析鼻咽癌调强放射治疗（IMRT）中分次间摆位误差的变化趋势,提高放疗准确性。方法：64例鼻咽癌患者进行调强治疗,治疗过程中共进行9次kV-CBCT扫描来确定患者的位置,根据前三次摆位误差的规律来指导后续治疗中患者体位的摆放。分别将第1~3、4~6和7~9次 kV-CBCT扫描中患者的位置信息设为A、B和C组。比较三组的摆位及靶区边界误差的差异。结果：A组在X（左-右）、Y（头-脚）和Z（前-后）轴方向上的平移和旋转误差分别为(0.58±1.49)、(0.82±1.96)、(0.53±1.64)mm和0.60°±0.50°、0.82°±0.58°、0.62°±0.53°,B组分别为(0.28±1.08)、(0.44±1.35)、(0.11±1.15)mm和0.68°±0.70°、0.80°±0.52°、0.63°±0.49°,C组分别为(0.32±1.23)、(0.42±1.51)、(0.25±1.24)mm和0.61°±0.53°、0.62°±0.53°、0.60°±0.50°。A、B、C三组在X、Y、Z轴上计划靶区的外放边界（MPTV）分别为2.49、3.42、2.47mm,1.46、2.05、1.08mm和1.66、2.11、1.49mm。A组与B、C两组在X、Y、Z轴上的平移误差的差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,而B、C两组间的误差差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：在鼻咽癌调强放射治疗中,基于kV-CBCT扫描分析摆位误差的规律,能较好地降低后续治疗中的摆位误差。     

乳腺癌术后容积调强放疗下移动误差对靶区剂量的影响

目的 通过对乳腺癌术后放疗患者虚拟移动误差,预测实际临床操作中移动误差的宽容范围。方法 回顾性分析了本院近3年来的乳腺癌术后行放疗的患者。根据治疗方法不同抽取10例改良根治术后乳腺癌病例,10例保乳根治术后病例,勾画靶区,制定容积调强放疗计划,移动放疗计划中心点虚拟移动误差,以1 mm步进移动最大至5 mm,重新计算剂量后记录相应数据,记录临床靶区（CTV）的V₅₀、心脏平均量、患侧肺V₂₀,CTV的体积等数据。应用SPSS 19.0软件进行统计分析,重复测量方差分析方法分析移动中心点后靶区实际剂量的变化。直线回归分析方法分析CTV体积与CTV移动中心点后剂量变化的相关关系。结果 虚拟移动误差后在近似乳腺切线方向的轴线方向影响较小,而近似乳腺切线方向的垂直方向影响较大,且在影响较大的垂直轴线上移动超过3 mm 后的CTV（V₅₀）值下降至83.85%,低于对CTV靶区剂量的一般要求。各个方向的移动误差进行统计分析发现,除左乳B方向移动误差所导致的剂量学变化差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）外,其他方向均具有统计学意义（F=34.182、12.877、16.443、9.846、46.829、10.122、57.931,P<0.05）。手术方式（保乳术后与改良根治术后）对靶区移动的影响不大。通过相关性分析发现,乳腺癌患者靶区CTV的体积与左乳B、C及右乳B方向的移动误差所带来的影响具有线性相关（F=5.733、18.496、6.630,P<0.05）,其他方向均无线性相关,且无明显规律可循。结论 在乳腺癌术后放疗中,不论左乳还是右乳,需要对垂直于乳腺切面方向的误差尤其注意。当该方向的误差超过3 mm后, CTV明显不足。移动误差对CTV剂量的影响与乳腺癌手术方式无关,与靶区体积大小的相关性无明显规律。     

快速旋转调强与五野动态调强在乳腺癌 保乳术后放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较乳腺癌保乳术后RapidArc计划与五野动态调强(5F-IMRT)计划的剂量学差异。方法 选择8例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后女性患者,处方剂量为50 Gy/ 25次。分别设计RapidArc计划与5F-IMRT计划。比较两种计划的靶区适形度指数、均匀性指数、靶区覆盖度和危及器官的受照剂量体积,同时比较两组计划实施时的治疗时间和机器跳数。结果 在两种计划的靶区比较中,RapidArc计划的靶区适形度指数为(0.88±0.03),高于5F-IMRT计划的(0.79±0.02)(t=8.28,P<0.05);RapidArc计划的均匀性指数为(9.01±0.73),优于5F-IMRT计划的(10.44±1.08)(t=-2.73,P<0.05)。两组计划在同侧肺受照剂量体积比较中RapidArc计划的D_mean、V₁₀、V₂₀、V₃₀小于5F-IMRT计划(t=-7.53、-7.20、-8.39、-7.80,P<0.05),但RapidArc计划中的V₅较5F-IMRT计划增加了约16% (t=5.67,P<0.05);心脏的受照剂量体积比较中RapidArc计划中的D_mean、V₅、V₁₀均高于5F-IMRT(t=10.46、28.76、5.40,P<0.05),但在RapidArc计划中心脏的V₃₀低于5F-IMRT (t=-6.12,P<0.05)。对侧肺和对侧乳腺的V₅在RapidArc计划中明显高于5F-IMRT计划 (肺:t=21.50,P<0.05;乳腺:t=5.44,P<0.05)。RapidArc计划中机器跳数减少了25%,平均治疗时间节省了60%。结论 乳腺癌保乳术后RapidArc计划与5F-IMRT计划比较提高了靶区的适形度和均匀度,减少了高剂量区的受照体积,降低了机器跳数,缩短了治疗时间,但增加了正常组织低剂量区的受照体积。     

基于Pinnacle3自动化计划设计模块在直肠癌调强放疗的应用研究

目的 通过比较自动化计划设计（Auto-Planning,AP）和调强放疗（IMRT）在直肠癌调强计划设计中的靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异,探讨AP在直肠癌计划设计中的优势。方法 选取10例直肠癌术后放疗病例,用Pinnacle³9.10计划系统基于同一CT图像进行IMRT和AP计划设计,比较两种不同计划的剂量体积直方图,分析靶区适形度指数（CI）、均匀性指数（HI）和危及器官受照剂量的差异。结果 AP计划中,靶区D_mean和D_min略有增加,D_maxcGy略有减小,差异有统计学意义（t=-1.36、-3.03、0.37,P<0.05）。D₂、D₉₅、D₉₈差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。AP计划中靶区的HI值有所降低,CI值有所提高,差异有统计学意义（t=1.24、0.10,P<0.05）。危及器官中膀胱V₄₀、V₅₀,小肠的 V₃₀、V₄₅、V₅₀,左右股骨头V₃₀、V₄₀,在AP计划与IMRT计划比较中差异有统计学意义（t=-3.21~1.02,P<0.05）。膀胱V₃₀、V₄₅,小肠V₄₀及左右股骨头V₄₅受照剂量体积均略低于IMRT计划,但差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 直肠癌AP计划能够达到比IMRT计划更好的靶区适形度,能有效降低靶区最高剂量,增加靶区最低剂量,减少热点和冷点,同时降低危及器官受照剂量,更好的保护正常组织。     

早期乳腺癌保乳术后仰卧及俯卧位调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后仰卧位与俯卧位调强治疗计划靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异.方法 选取15例接受保乳术后放疗的大乳腺及乳腺下垂的左侧乳腺癌患者,分别进行仰卧位及俯卧位CT定位扫描,利用相同优化条件分别进行切线2野调强治疗计划设计.比较2种不同体位计划的靶区剂量分布、心脏、左肺及右侧乳腺受照剂量和体积,以及机器跳数的差异.结果 俯卧位调强计划适形度指数(CI)优于仰卧位计划(0.79±0.05 vs. 0.72±0.04,W=138,P<0.01),均匀性指数(HI)也优于仰卧位计划(1.09±0.01 vs. 1.12±0.02,t=-4.7,P<0.01).俯卧位计划靶区接受95%处方剂量照射的百分体积(V_95%)、最小剂量(D_min)大于仰卧位计划(t=7.1、6.4,P<0.01),平均剂量(D_mean)大于仰卧位计划(W=153,P<0.01),最大剂量(D_max)小于仰卧位计划(t=-3.6,P<0.01).仰卧位计划的右乳接受5 Gy照射的百分体积(V₅)小于俯卧位计划(W=160,P<0.01),心脏接受30 Gy照射的百分体积(V₃₀)大于俯卧位计划(t=5.4,P<0.01),心脏平均剂量(D_mean)、左肺接受20和5 Gy照射的百分体积(V₂₀、V₅)明显大于俯卧位计划(W=133、120、120,P<0.01).机器跳数间差异无统计学意义.结论 对于大乳腺及乳腺下垂乳腺癌患者,保乳术后俯卧位调强计划与仰卧位调强计划相比,靶区剂量分布更均匀,心、肺受照射剂量和体积明显减少.     

宫颈癌调强放疗后骨盆衰竭骨折的发生率及影响因素分析

目的 探讨宫颈癌盆腔调强放疗后患者骨盆衰竭骨折（PIF）的发生率及影响因素。方法 收集2013年11月至2015年12月在本院行盆腔调强放疗的104例宫颈癌患者,回顾性分析随访过程中骨盆衰竭骨折的发生情况及其影响因素。结果 104例患者中,16例（31个部位）患者发生了骨盆衰竭骨折,发生率为15.4%;其中多发骨折患者10例（62.5%）。有症状的患者5例（31%）,经休息或止痛治疗后症状可缓解。骨折发生的时间是放疗结束后1~16个月（平均6.5个月）。发生的部位分别是骶骨16例（51.6%）、骶髂关节7例（22.6%）、髂骨6例（19.4%）、股骨头1例（3.2%）及耻骨1例（3.2%）。单因素和多因素分析显示,绝经后状态和低体重（≤ 55 kg）是宫颈癌盆腔调强放疗后骨盆衰竭骨折的危险因素（P<0.05）。亚组分析发现,对宫颈癌术后辅助调强放疗患者,绝经后状态是盆腔调强放疗后衰竭骨折的危险因素（P<0.05）。结论 绝经后状态和低体重（≤ 55 kg）是影响宫颈癌患者盆腔调强放疗后衰竭骨折发生的重要危险因素。     

三维适形与简化调强放疗技术在非小细胞肺癌放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 用剂量学方法比较三维适形(3D-CRT)和简化调强放疗(sIMRT)技术用于治疗非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的差异。方法 选择接受放疗的10例NSCLC患者进行研究。对每例患者进行3D-CRT和sIMRT的治疗计划设计,处方剂量为60 Gy(2 Gy/次),所有计划都使95%靶区体积达到处方剂量要求。并用ADAC Pinnacl计划系统提供的卷积或迭加算法对两种放疗技术的治疗计划进行剂量计算,比较靶区剂量分布均匀性和适形性,以及危及正常组织剂量体积直方图参数。结果 3D-CRT与sIMRT放疗计划的等剂量线和DVH相近,sIMRT计划的靶区剂量均匀性和适形性略优于3D-CRT计划,sIMRT放疗计划中肺的平均剂量、V₅、V₁₀、V₂₀分别比3D-CRT降低14.81%、17.88%、19.15%、27.78%,而食管、心脏、脊髓等危及器官的受量基本相同。结论 对于NSCLC,sIMRT放疗技术在某些方面具有3D-CRT无法替代的优势,值得在临床推广应用。     

铅门跟随技术与铅门固定技术在直肠癌术前调强放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 研究固定射野动态调强放疗铅门跟随技术与铅门固定技术在直肠癌术前调强放疗中的剂量学差异.方法 采用两种治疗技术对10例直肠癌术前患者设计治疗计划.在95%体积的计划靶区(PTV)和计划肿瘤区(PGTV)满足处方剂量的前提下,尽量降低危及器官的剂量.比较两组治疗计划的剂量-体积直方图,评估靶区及危及器官的剂量分布.分别将两组治疗计划用电离室矩阵2D-Array 729和OCTAVIUS(PTW)模体进行剂量验证.结果 两组计划的靶区均达到临床处方剂量的要求.PTV和PGTV的最大剂量与平均剂量差异无统计学意义.铅门跟随动态调强计划中全身的V₅、V₁₀、V₂₀、V₃₀、V₄₀、D_mean以及双侧股骨头、膀胱、小肠的V₁₀、V₂₀、V₃₀和D_mean均低于铅门固定动态调强计划的相应值,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.32~12.24,P<0.05);双侧股骨头、膀胱、小肠的V₄₀以及D_max差异无统计学意义.采用γ-2D分析两组计划的通过率,两组计划均通过剂量验证.结论 直肠癌术前放疗患者采用固定射野动态调强放疗铅门跟随技术与铅门固定技术两种技术,其靶区和危及器官受量均能满足临床治疗要求,而铅门跟随技术能够更好地降低正常组织和危及器官的低剂量照射.     

Comparative dosimetric study of two strategies of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer

This study compared the target volume coverage and normal tissues sparing of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT, 1-phase) and sequential-IMRT (2-phase) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Fourteen consecutive patients with newly diagnosed primary NPC were enrolled in this study. The CT images were transferred to a commercial planning system for structural delineation. The gross tumor volume (GTV) included gross nasopharyngeal tumor and involved lymph nodes of more than 1-cm diameter. The clinical target volume (CTV) modeled two regions considered to represent different risks. CTV1 encompassed the GTV with 5–10-mm margin of adjacent tissues. CTV2 encompassed ipsilateral or contralateral elective nodal regions at risk of harboring microscopic tumor. A commercial IMRT treatment planning system (Eclipse Version 7.1) was used to provide treatment planning. Seven fixed-gantry (0°, 50°, 100°, 150°, 210°, 260°, 310°) angles were designated. The 14 patients were treated with sequential-IMRT, and treatment was then replanned with an SIB strategy to compare the dosimetric difference. For the sequential strategy, the dose delivered to CTV1/CTV2 in the first course was 54 Gy (1.8 Gy × 30 Fr); while CTV1 was boosted by an additional 16.2 Gy (1.8 Gy × 9 Fr) in the second course. For SIB-IMRT, the dose prescribed to CTV1 was 69.7 Gy (2.05 Gy × 34 Fr); 56.1 Gy was given to CTV2 (1.65 Gy × 34 Fr). A statistical analysis of the dose-volume-histogram of target volumes and critical organs was performed. Paired Student’s t-test was used to compare the dosimetric differences between the two techniques. The mean dose to CTV1 was 101.7 ± 2.4% and 102.3 ± 3.1% of the prescribed dose for SIB-IMRT and sequential-IMRT, respectively. The mean CTV2 dose was 109.8 ± 4.7% of the prescribed dose for SIB-IMRT and 112.6 ± 6.0% of the prescribed dose for sequential-IMRT. The maximal dose to the spinal cord was 4489 ± 495 cGy and 3547 ± 767 cGy for SIB and sequential-IMRT (p = 0.0001), respectively. The maximal dose to brain stem was significantly higher using SIB technique (5284 ± 551 cGy) than sequential-IMRT (4834 ± 388 cGy) (p = 0.0001). The mean dose to the parotid gland and ear apparatus was significantly lower using SIB-IMRT. The mean dose to the right/left parotids was 2865 ± 320 cGy/2903 ± 429 cGy and 3567 ± 534 cGy/3476 ± 489 cGy for SIB and sequential-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.0001). Target coverage was the same for both techniques; the dose distribution in the elective nodal area with SIB was superior to that with sequential-IMRT. SIB-IMRT provides better sparing of parotid gland and inner ear structures. Extra caution should be taken when applying SIB-IMRT since critical organs close to the boost volume may receive higher doses.