分次立体定向放射治疗在局部残存、复发鼻咽癌中的应用

目的:评价对鼻咽癌患者放射治疗后局部残存、区域复发进行分次立体定向放射治疗(FSRT)的临床价值和毒副作用. 方法:对 24例鼻咽癌放疗后局部残存、区域复发的患者,应用奥沃光子公司生产的立体定向放射治疗系统,10MV X射线,80%为参考剂量曲线,肿瘤边缘分次剂量为4-6Gy/次,2-3次/周,总剂量为8Gy-24Gy.患者分为2组:A组18例为首程根治性放射治疗后6个月内经鼻咽镜、CT或MRI检查仍有较大肿块残存;B组6例为首程根治性放射治疗后6个月以上区域复发者.结果: 24例患者CR为66.7%(16/24),PR 29.1%(7/24),NC 4.2%(1/24),CR PR 95.8%(23/24).鼻咽部大出血的发生率为16.7%(4/24). 结论:对鼻咽癌放射治疗后局部残存、区域复发,采用分次立体定向放射治疗推量治疗是一种有效的方法,鼻咽部大出血是其严重的并发症.     

局部残留或复发鼻咽癌的分次立体定向放射治疗

目的　评价分次立体定向放射治疗 (FSRT)对局部残留和复发鼻咽癌的初步疗效。方法　应用FSRT对 30例局部残留 (11例 )或复发 (19例 )鼻咽癌患者分 2个组进行治疗 ,其残留组和复发组中位处方剂量分别为 18Gy和 4 8Gy ,中位分次量分别为 6Gy和 8Gy ,每周 2次。结果　可评价例数共 2 9例 ,FSRT治疗后 3个月残留组的CR和PR各为 6 /11和 3/11,复发组各为 8/18和 8/18。全组病例随诊 3.4～ 37.9个月 (中位值 15个月 ) ,残留组 1和 2年总生存率、无瘤生存率、无局部复发生存率和无远地转移生存率分别为 77.8%和 6 6 .7%、5 6 .8%和 5 6 .8%、88.9%和 88.9%、75 .0 %和75 .0 % ,复发组相应为 6 9.8%和 5 9.8%、5 3.4 %和 4 4 .5 %、76 .6 %和 6 3.8%、70 .5 %和 5 8.7%。残留组和复发组生存患者卡氏评分≥ 90者分别占 8/8和 11/13。结论　FSRT对局部残留或复发鼻咽癌有较好的局部控制效果和较高的安全性 ,区域和远地转移是治疗失败的主要原因。     

鼻咽癌局部复发分次立体定向放射治疗

目的　探讨分次立体定向放射治疗技术 ,在局部复发晚期鼻咽癌再程放疗中的应用。方法　 1997年 7月到 2 0 0 0年12月 ,采用分次立体定向放射治疗局部复发鼻咽癌 2 3例。所有病例均采用 6MVX线照射 ,设 1～ 3个中心 ,80 %剂量曲线将靶区完全包含。总剂量DT2 4～ 64Gy(中位剂量 5 2 .2Gy) ,单次剂量DT4～ 8Gy(中位剂量 6.4Gy)。 结果　局部复发鼻咽癌经分次立体定向放射治疗后 ,1年生存率为 78.3 % (18/2 3 )、2年生存率为 69.6% (16/2 3 )。 3 9.1% (9/2 3 )的患者随访期内死亡 ,其中死于局部复发 1例 ,死于远处转移 5例 ,鼻咽大出血 3例。结论　分次立体定向放射治疗用于局部复发鼻咽癌的治疗是安全有效的 ,但单次剂量和总剂量值得进一步研究。     

鼻咽癌初程调强放疗后残存病变分次立体定向放射治疗

 目的 初步评价分次立体定向放射治疗技术用于鼻咽癌三维适形调强放射治疗后残存病变推量治疗的临床价值。方法 31例鼻咽癌三维适形调强放射治疗后病变残存的患者，应用德国BrainLAB公司生产的立体定向放射治疗系统进行推量照射。6MVX射线中位剂量16Gy（12～20Gy）。1～3个中心，参考剂量曲线选定为70％～90％。分割方式：4Gy／次，间隔1～3d。结果 本组患者1、2、3年鼻咽局部控制率分别为97.0%，92．O％和86．O％；1、2、3年总生存率分别100％，94％和90％；1、2、3年无瘤生存率为97％，90％和82％。无其他特殊并发症发生。结论 鼻咽癌初治患者在三维适形调强放疗后残存病变给与立体定向加量照射，能够取得较好的局部控制率和生存率。     

放疗后残存、复发鼻咽癌的立体定向放射治疗

目的 评价对鼻咽癌患者放射治疗后局部残存。区域复发进行立体定向放射治疗的临床价值和毒副作用。方法 对33例鼻咽癌放射治疗后局部残存，区域复发的患者，应用大恒公司生产的立体定向放射治疗系统，6MVX线，60%-90%为参考剂量曲线，肿瘤边缘分次剂量为3-8Gy(中位数：6Gy)，间隔1-2天，总剂量为12-48Gy(中位数：31Gy)/3-13次（中位数：6或次），靶体积为4.2-45.0cm^3(中位数：18.7cm^3)。患者分为3个组；A组11例为首程根治性放射治疗后6个月内经鼻咽镜，CT或MRI检查发现仍有较大肿块残存；B组组13例为首程根治性放射治疗后6个月以上区域复发者；C组9例为根治性放射治疗后复发行二程放射治疗后6个月以上再次复发者。结果 全部33例患者CR为54.5%,PR为33.3%,NC为12.1%。A组CR为63.6%,PR为36.4%,NC为0，B组CR为61.5%,PR为23.1%,NC为15.4%。C组CR为33.3%,PR为44.4%,NC为22.2%,A,B,C组3年生存率分别为72.7%,32.3%,33.3%。鼻咽部大出血的发生率为12.1%(4/33)。结论 鼻咽癌放射治疗后局部残存。区域复发，采用立体定向放射治疗推量治疗或单一治疗是1种有效的方法。鼻咽部大出血是其严重的并发症。     

立体定向适形放射治疗鼻咽癌复发或残留病变50例疗效分析

目的:探讨立体定向适形放射治疗对鼻咽癌放射治疗后残留病变或复发患者的临床疗效。方法:50例经根治放疗后的鼻咽癌复发或残留患者,全部采用WDVE-XKY808立体定向适形放射治疗。6MVX线总剂量DT30~48Gy,设1~4个中心,参考剂量曲线选定为70%~90%。4~6Gy/次,每次间隔1~3d。结果:肿瘤完全控制48例,无法评价2例,局部控制率为96%。1、2和3年总生存率分别为83·6%、65·0%和59·6%。1、2和3年无瘤生存率分别为75·0%、64·9%和54·1%。结论:立体定向适形放射治疗是鼻咽癌放射治疗后残留病变或复发患者“挽救性”治疗的适应证,有较好的局部控制效果和较高的安全性,是治疗复发或残留癌患者的有效方法之一。     

局部残留和复发鼻咽癌立体定向放疗的预后因素分析

目的分析局部残留和复发鼻咽癌分次立体定向放疗(FSRT)的预后因素。方法采用FSRT治疗鼻咽癌常规放疗后局部残留和复发患者共90例,除3例治疗前已发生远处转移外,余87例(34例残留,53例复发)纳入分析。其中肿瘤位于鼻咽腔内、外者分别为44、43例;中位肿瘤体积为5.7 cm3(0.8～24.7 cm3);残留和复发病灶FSRT的中位处方剂量分别为18 Gy分3次和48 Gy分6次。用Kaplan-Meier法计算无局部失败生存率(LFFS)和疾病相关生存率(DSS),用Logrank法和Cox模型分别进行单因素和多因素的预后分析。结果中位随访时间为24.9个月(3.3～86.3个月),1、2、3、4年LFFS和DSS分别为90%、83%、81%、75%和84%、77%、61%、56%。单因素分析显示肿瘤体积(≤或>5 cm3)对患者DSS有影响(P=0.015)。多因素分析显示肿瘤体积和病灶类型(残留或复发)是影响DSS的独立因素(P<0.05)。残留组和复发组晚期副反应发生率分别为9%和26%。结论FSRT治疗残留和复发鼻咽癌可得到较好局部控制率和生存率,复发病灶和较大肿瘤体积是预后不良的独立影响因素。     

分次立体定向放疗鼻咽癌初治残存病灶的远期疗效观察

目的 回顾分析分次立体定向放疗(FSRT)鼻咽癌放疗后残存肿瘤的长期疗效,评价其临床价值.方法 对46例鼻咽癌放疗后鼻咽局部残存患者采用分次立体定向放疗技术推量治疗.根据1992年福州分期,Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳa期分别为1、6、30、9例,T1、T2、T3、T4期分别为3、11、27、5例,N0、N1、N2、N3期分别为14、16、12、4例.常规分割鼻咽DT68～70 Gy 7～8周完成,Ⅲ、Ⅳa期患者加用PVF或POF方案在放疗前后各化疗1个周期.对鼻咽残存病灶FSRT总剂量18～24 Gy,分3次,间隔3～7 d,1～3个中心,70%～90%参考剂量曲线.结果 61%完全缓解,39%部分缓解.1、2、3、4、5年总生存率分别为100%、87%、83%、78%、76%.1、3、5年无瘤生存生存率分别为100%、93%、89%.1、3、5年无远处转移生存率分别为100%、85%、79%.1、3、5年局部控制率分别为100%、94%、91%.死亡17例,1例死于颈部淋巴结复发,2例死于鼻咽大出血,4例死于鼻咽局部复发,10例死于远处转移.结论 FSRT鼻咽癌放疗后残存病灶局部控制率高、远期疗效好且并发症少,可成为鼻咽癌综合治疗手段之一.单次剂量和总剂量还需进一步研究.     

鼻咽癌放疗后复发或残存的患者立体定向放射治疗

鼻咽癌具有不同于其他头颈部鳞癌的特点，对放射治疗敏感，由于解剖结构限制、肿瘤局部生长浸润的特性，放射治疗成为治疗鼻咽癌的首选方法。然而鼻咽癌根治性外照射后，10％～13％有局部病变残存，复发率达20％～30％，是治疗失败的原因之一。立体定向放射治疗能精确地将射线集中于靶体积，而靶区周围的正常组织由于剂量曲线迅速递减而免受照射，因此采用立体定向放射治疗鼻咽癌复发或病变残存是一种较理想的治疗方法。我科于1999年4月至2001年4月对16例鼻咽癌放疗后复发或残存的患进行了立体定向放射治疗的研究，近期疗效满意。     

鼻咽癌局部残留和复发的立体定向放射治疗

鼻咽癌是我国常见的恶性肿瘤之一，放射治疗为首选治疗方式，鼻咽癌患者在全程放疗后约10％～20％局部仍残存肿块，其中肿瘤残留占6．7％～13％，复发率为20％～35％。分次立体定向放射治疗（fractionated stereotaction radiotherapy FSRT）具有靶区剂量集中、靶区周围正常组织和器官接受的剂量大大下降的特点，目前已成为鼻咽癌放疗后局部残留和复发的重要治疗手段之一。我院自1997年引用X刀并应用FSRT技术治疗36例，使局部残留和复发鼻咽癌患者取得较好疗效，现报道如下。     

Organ motion in image-guided radiotherapy: lessons from real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy

External radiotherapy using imaging technology for patient setup is often called image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). The most important problem to solve in IGRT is organ motion. Four-dimensional radiotherapy (4DRT), in which the accuracy of localization is improved – not only in space but also in time – in comparison to 3DRT, is required in IGRT. Real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy (RTRT) has been shown to be feasible for performing 4DRT with the aid of a fiducial marker near the tumor. Lung, liver, prostate, spinal/paraspinal, gynecological, head and neck, esophagus, and pancreas tumors are now ready for dose escalation studies using RTRT.     

国产威达（WD－H·D·R18）后装腔内治疗机的临床应用（附380例疗效观察）

我院自１９９２年６月至１９９３年６月使用广东威达（ＷＤ·Ｈ·Ｄ·Ｒ·１８型）后装腔内治疗机，施行腔内放疗、组织间插植、术中置管和表面敷贴放疗等方法，治疗各种癌瘤共３８０例，其近期疗效为：完全消失７９．７４％（３０３／３８０）部分消失：１４．７４％（５６／３８０）无效：５．５３％（２１／３８０）；总有效率：９４．４８％（３５９／３８０）。全组随诊时间为１－１２个月。结合临床应用的若干问题对该机作出初步评价。     

2019年中国大陆地区放疗人员和设备基本情况调查研究

[目的]了解我国大陆地区放疗人才及设备情况。[方法]2019年4月10日至9月20日期间,中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会通过线上问卷的形式进行了全国第九次行业调查,调查2018年度全国各个医院从事放疗的人员、设备、技术、年放疗人次以及主要放疗病种等数据。[结果]本次问卷回收率100%,所有放疗单位数据通过各省医学会再次确认。中国大陆地区放疗单位1463家。从事放疗的工作人员共29096人,其中放疗医师14575人、物理师4172人、技师8940人、维修师1409人。共有直线加速器2021台(含进口和国产),钴60远距离治疗机66台,近距离治疗机339台,质子重离子机5台,常规模拟机1453台,CT模拟机355台。能开展二维放疗1002家,三维适形放疗1272家,静态调强放疗1121家,Rapid Arc145家,容积旋转调强放疗279家,立体定向放射治疗297家,近距离治疗273家,全身X线治疗75家,全身电子线治疗73家,Tomo治疗38家,质子/重离子治疗5家。病床数97836张(含综合医院肿瘤科病床),放疗年治疗人数1259602人。[结论]中国大陆地区放疗单位数目缓慢增长,放疗从业人员较前稍减少,开展放疗新技术单位逐年增加,全国每百万人口放疗设备(加速器+钴60)仅1.5,仍低于WHO的要求。     

Clinician's guide to prostate IMRT plan assessment and optimisation

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) offers dosimetric benefit for irregularly shaped treatment volumes compared to three-dimensional conformal approaches. Some groups advocate IMRT as the standard of care for prostate radiotherapy. For clinicians, assessment of an IMRT plan can introduce new opportunities and challenges. Although a standard IMRT plan may be deemed acceptable by meeting pre-set dose constraints, further optimisation may yield a superior treatment plan by further reducing dose to critical structures or improving target volume homogeneity. The aim of this article is to present aspects of IMRT planning relevant to clinicians to aid in plan critiquing.     

Evaluation of a Novel Field-placement Algorithm for Locoregional Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Including the Internal Mammary Chain

Aims

Irradiation of the internal mammary chain (IMC) is increasing following recently published data, but the need for formal delineation of lymph node volumes is slowing implementation in some healthcare settings. A field-placement algorithm for irradiating locoregional lymph nodes including the IMC could reduce the resource impact of introducing irradiation of the IMC. This study describes the development and evaluation of such an algorithm.

非小细胞肺癌3D-CRT与IMRT立体定向放疗剂量学比较

目的:研究三维适形(3D-CRT)和逆向调强(IMRT)两种计划方式在进行早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)立体定向放射治疗(SBRT)的剂量学差异。方法:选取接受放射治疗的早期NSCLC患者12例,分别采用3D-CRT和IMRT技术设计SBRT治疗计划。比较两种计划方式下PTV的相关剂量学参数(CI、HI、D1%、D99%),肺、胸壁、心脏及脊髓的剂量学参数(Vx、Dmean、Dmax),以及加速器的机器跳数、治疗时间等差异。结果:在PTV相关参数比较中,3D-CRT计划的CI、HI以及D1%均差于IMRT,差异有统计学意义,P<0.05;但是两者的D99%差异无统计学意义,P>0.05。在危及器官受量的比较中,3D-CRT与IMRT计划的患侧肺V5～V40、健侧肺V5～V15、双侧肺V5～V40、胸壁V5～V40、Dmean、心脏V20～V40、Dmean及脊髓Dmax的差异均无统计学意义,P>0.05。3D-CRT计划的机器跳数及治疗时间较IMRT计划分别减少了53%和78%,P<0.05。在绝对剂量体积比较中,3D-CRT的V60～V75及V45～V60均大于IMRT,V20～V45小于IMRT,差异均无统计学意义,P>0.05。结论:IMRT计划在早期NSCLC行SBRT治疗中不具有明显的剂量学优势。考虑到IMRT实施过程的复杂性和不确定性,早期NSCLC行SBRT治疗时3D-CRT可作为首选。     

Radiothérapie adaptative : stratégies et bénéfices selon les localisations tumorales

Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is a complexe image-guided radiotherapy modality that comprises multiple planning to account for anatomical variations occurring during irradiation. Schematically, two strategies of RTA can be distinguished and combined according to tumor locations. One or more replanning can be proposed to correct systematic variations such as tumor shrinkage. A library of treatment plans with day-to-day plan selection from cone-beam CT imaging can also be proposed to correct random variations such as uterine motion or bladder/rectum volume changes. Because of strong anatomical variations occurring during irradiation, RTA appears therefore particularly justified in head and neck, lung, bladder, cervical and rectum and pancreas tumors, and to a lesser extent for prostate tumors and other digestive tumors. For these tumor locations, ART provides a fairly clear dosimetric benefit but a clinical benefit not yet formally demonstrated. ART cannot be proposed in a routine practice but must be evaluated medico-economically in the context of prospective trials. A rigorous quality control must be associated.     

The Long and the Short of it: the Role of Short-course Radiotherapy in the Neoadjuvant Management of Rectal Cancer

Total mesorectal excision is the cornerstone of treatment for rectal cancer. Multiple randomised trials have shown a reduction in local recurrence rates with the addition of preoperative radiotherapy, either as a 1-week hypofractionated short-course (SCRT) or a conventionally fractionated long-course (LCRT) schedule with concurrent chemotherapy. There is also increasing interest in the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to radiotherapy with the aim of improving disease-free survival. The relative use of SCRT and LCRT varies considerably across the world. This is reflected in, and is probably driven in part by, disparity between international guideline recommendations. In addition, different approaches to treatment may exist both between and within countries, with variation related to patient, disease and treatment centre and financial factors. In this review, we will specifically focus on the use of SCRT for the treatment of rectal cancer. We will discuss the literature base and current guidelines, highlighting the challenges and controversies in clinical application of this evidence. We will also discuss potential future applications of SCRT, including its role in optimisation and intensification of treatment for rectal cancer.     

A Randomised Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing the Deliverability and Acute Toxicity of Wide Tangent versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy to the Breast and Internal Mammary Chain

AimsInclusion of the internal mammary chain in the radiotherapy target volume (IMC-RT) improves disease-free and overall survival in higher risk breast cancer patients, but increases radiation doses to heart and lungs. Dosimetric data show that either modified wide-tangential fields (WT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) together with [AQ1]voluntary deep inspiration breath hold (vDIBH) keep mean heart doses below 4 Gy in most patients. However, the impact on departmental resources has not yet been documented. This phase II clinical trial compared the time taken to deliver IMC-RT using either WT and vDIBH or VMAT and vDIBH, together with planning time, dosimetry, set-up reproducibility and toxicity.Materials and methodsLeft-sided breast cancer patients requiring IMC-RT were randomised to receive either WT(vDIBH) or VMAT radiotherapy. The primary outcome was treatment time, powered to detect a minimum difference of 75 min (5 min/fraction) between techniques. The population mean displacement, systematic error and random error for cone beam computed tomography chest wall matches in three directions of movement were calculated. Target volume and organ at risk doses were compared between groups. Side-effects, including skin (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), lung and oesophageal toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03) rates, were compared between the groups over 3 months. Patient-reported outcome measures, including shoulder toxicity at baseline, 6 months and 1 year, were compared.ResultsTwenty-one patients were recruited from a single UK centre between February 2017 and January 2018. The mean (standard deviation) total treatment time per fraction for VMAT treatments was 13.2 min (1.7 min) compared with 28.1 min (3.3 min) for WT(vDIBH). There were no statistically significant differences in patient set-up errors in between groups. The average mean heart dose for WT(vDIBH) was 2.6 Gy compared with 3.4 Gy for VMAT(vDIBH) (P = 0.13). The mean ipsilateral lung V_17Gy was 32.8% in the WT(vDIBH) group versus 34.4% in the VMAT group (P = 0.2). The humeral head (mean dose 16.8 Gy versus 2.8 Gy), oesophagus (maximum dose 37.3 Gy versus 20.1 Gy) and thyroid (mean dose 22.0 Gy versus 11.2 Gy) all received a statistically significantly higher dose in the VMAT group. There were no statistically significant differences in skin, lung or oesophageal toxicity within 3 months of treatment. Patient-reported outcomes of shoulder toxicity, pain, fatigue, breathlessness and breast symptoms were similar between groups at 1 year.ConclusionVMAT(vDIBH) and WT(vDIBH) are feasible options for locoregional breast radiotherapy including the IMC. VMAT improves nodal coverage and delivers treatment more quickly, resulting in less breath holds for the patient. This is at the cost of increased dose to some non-target tissues. The latter does not appear to translate into increased toxicity in this small study.