胸上段食管癌螺旋断层放疗和容积旋转调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸上段食管癌螺旋断层(HT)与容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)计划的剂量学差异。方法 随机抽样法选取10例胸上段食管癌患者,分别设计HT和VMAT双弧照射调强放疗计划,肿瘤靶区体积(GTV)给予66 Gy/30次,计划靶区体积(PTV)给予50 Gy/30次。根据剂量体积直方图(DVH)评价靶区的D_1%、D_5%、D_95%、D_99%、适形指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)和危及器官(OAR)受量,比较治疗时间和机器跳数(MU)的差异。结果 HT组GTV和PTV的D_99%高于VMAT组(t=4.476、3.756,P<0.05);GTV与PTV的D_1%、D_5%、D_95%、HI和CI差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。HT组全肺V₁₀、V₁₅、V₂₀和全肺平均剂量(MLD)均显著低于VMAT组(t=-3.369、-4.824、-4.869、-3.657,P<0.05);全肺V₅、V₃₀和脊髓D_max差异均无统计学意义(P >0.05)。HT组治疗时间和MU数均远大于VMAT组(t=13.970、7.982,P<0.05)。结论 HT与VMAT技术均能满足胸上段食管癌放疗剂量要求。HT技术能显著减小双肺受量,而VMAT技术具备明显的效率优势。     

胸上段食管癌无均整器容积弧形调强与固定野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的 探讨在瓦里安TrueBeam^TM直线加速器中使用无均整器出束容积弧形调强(RA-FFF)及常规固定野调强(IMRT)两种计划剂量学差异.方法 选择10例分期为cT_2-3N_0-1M_0-1a胸上段食管癌患者定位CT资料,使用ECLIPSE^TM 10.0.4治疗计划系统分别设计RA-FFF、IMRT根治性放疗计划,处方剂量为60 Gy/30次,比较2种计划的剂量学参数和执行效率.结果 2种计划靶区适形度相似,差异无统计学意义;IMRT计划的均匀性指数高于RA-FFF计划(t=7.298,P=0.008);RA-FFF计划中肺组织的V₂₀、V₅低于IMRT计划(t=2.451、2.604,P<0.05).RA-FFF及IMRT两种计划制定时间分别为(5.3±1.4)、(3.5±1.7)h(t=2.585,P<0.05),机器总跳数分别为632±213及734±132(t=-1.287,P=0.084),治疗执行时间分别为(2.2±0.9)、(4.5±1.3)min(t=4.60,P<0.01).结论 与IMRT计划相比,RA-FFF在胸上段食管癌治疗中具有相似的靶区剂量分布,可更好地保护肺组织,计划制定时间较长但执行效率较高.     

上胸段食管癌调强放射治疗中淋巴结意外照射的剂量学研究

目的比较上胸段食管癌容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)与5野的静态调强放射治疗(5F-IMRT)在淋巴结意外照射中的剂量学差异,评估两种方式在上胸段食管癌放射治疗中的剂量学特点。方法选取20例典型的上胸段食管癌患者,在进行靶区勾画时,肿瘤区(GTV)、临床靶区(CTV)不包含所有淋巴结,而将淋巴结单独勾画作为正常组织。对这20例患者分别制定两套计划,即VMAT与5F-IMRT,主要的计划评估参数为靶区的适形指数(CI)、均匀指数(HI),以及接受相应处方剂量水平照射体积百分比V95、V110;危及器官(OAR)评估包括肺的Dmean、V5、V20、V30,心脏的Dmean、V25,脊髓的Dmax,机器调数(MU)。同时评估各个淋巴结的等效均衡剂量(EUD)与接受40 Gy照射剂量的体积百分比V40。结果5F-IMRT计划在V95%上具有较高的计划靶区(PTV)剂量覆盖率(t=-9.4,P<0.05),VMAT计划的适形指数(CI)优于5F-IMRT(t=-5.3,P<0.05);5F-IMRT计划较VMAT计划降低平均肺V510.9%(t=-7.8,P<0.05),降低平均脊髓Dmax 9%(t=-10.2,P<0.05);VMAT计划较5F-IMRT计划降低平均MU 18.6%(t=-6.2,P<0.05);5F-IMRT计划在所有上胸段淋巴结区域的平均EUD值为32.3~61.5 Gy,较VMAT计划(32.5~61.1 Gy)提高4.7%,平均V40提高2.4%。各个上胸段淋巴结区域除左气管支气管淋巴结(106tbL)外的意外照射剂量,与PTV的体积大小充分相关(R=0.716~0.933,P<0.05)。结论5F-IMRT的放射治疗计划在上胸段食管癌淋巴结意外照射中更具剂量学优势,且肿瘤靶区较大的患者淋巴结区域具有更高的辐射剂量。     

胸上段食管癌断层定野与断层螺旋放疗和容积旋转调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸上段食管癌断层定野放疗（TD）、断层螺旋放疗（HT）和容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）的剂量学差异,为临床上食管癌放疗方式的选择提供依据。方法 选取15例临床分期为cT_2~4N_0~1M₀的胸上段食管癌患者,分别设计TD、HT和VMAT 3种计划。比较靶区的剂量体积直方图（DVH）、均匀指数（HI）、适形指数（CI）、危及器官（OAR）受量、治疗时间和机器跳数（MU）的差异。结果 HT和TD计划的D₂和D_mean均明显低于VMAT计划;TD计划的D₉₈和HT相似,但均高于VMAT计划。对于HI,HT < TD < VMAT,3组之间差异有统计学意义（F=81.603,P < 0.05）。3组计划的CI差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。双肺的V₁₅,HT明显高于VMAT和TD （t=3.547、-2.626,P < 0.05）。TD计划的V₂₀与HT计划的相似,但高于VMAT计划（t=2.824、3.052, P < 0.05）。3组计划中的脊髓D_max无明显差异。HT和TD的执行时间、MU均高于VMAT,差异具有统计学意义（t=21.617、15.693、10.018、7.802,P < 0.05）。结论 与VMAT相比,HT和TD计划可明显改善胸上段食管癌靶区的剂量分布,可获得更好的适形度。但VMAT比HT或TD明显降低双肺V₂₀、MU及治疗时间。TD与HT相比,HT的靶区剂量分布更好,但TD降低了双肺的V₁₅,且缩短治疗时间。     

三维适形、逆向调强和旋转调强放疗技术治疗胸段食管癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸段食管癌3种放疗技术( 3D-CRT、IMRT、RapidArc)的剂量学特点,并分析3种技术的优劣及应用特点.方法 15例胸段食管癌患者入组,依据CT图像,勾画靶区,针对患者的同一套CT图像的相同靶区分别制定3D-CRT、5野IMRT(IMRT5)、7野IMRT( IMRT7)、9野IMRT(IMRT9)、单弧Arc( Arc1)、双弧Arc( Arc2)共6套计划.PTV处方剂量为40 Gy分20次4周+19.6 Gy分14次7d.结果 3D-CRT计划各项靶区剂量学参数明显差于IMRT计划及RapidArc计划(t=5.77、3.52,P＜0.05),6套计划的PTV V95(％)分别为:3D-CRT (91.55 ±2.90),IMRT5(96.66±1.05),IMRT7 (96.87±1.23),IMRT (96.81±1.16),Arcl (94.98±1.41),Arc2 (95.93±1.32).RapidArc计划的靶区适形度(CI)最好(t=3.76,10.01,P＜0.05),IMRT计划的靶区均匀性(HI)最好(t =3.93、3.37,P＜0.05).危及器官参数RapidArc与IMRT各计划之间差异无统计学意义.3D-CRT和RapidArc计划的机器跳数明显少于IMRT计划,差异高达75％.结论 对于胸段食管癌患者,采用IMRT或RapidArc技术可以在保护正常组织的同时,涵盖临床必需的治疗靶区.3D-CRT计划对降低正常组织低剂量散射区方面优势明显.RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势.     

鼻咽癌三种调强放疗计划剂量学对比研究

目的 对比鼻咽癌常规固定野调强（IMRT）、容积旋转调强（VMAT）以及断层调强（HT）3种不同调强放疗计划的剂量学差异。方法 选择18例接受VMAT治疗的鼻咽癌患者,以相同处方剂量和目标条件分别重新进行IMRT和HT计划设计。比较3种计划靶区的均匀度（HI）、适形度（CI）、最大剂量以及平均剂量。危及器官的最大量和平均量以及感兴趣区的剂量体积、计划执行时间和机器跳数（MU）。结果 3种计划在靶区的覆盖率满足临床要求。IMRT计划在靶区的HI和CI方面结果最差,HT计划结果最优。危及器官方面,IMRT计划受量最高,HT计划的脊髓、脑干和腮腺受量最低;但对于视神经、晶状体以及视交叉HT计划的受量最高而VMAT计划的受量最低。IMRT的治疗时间（8.0±0.5） min高于VMAT（3.9±0.1）min和HT（7.4±0.9）min。与VMAT相比,IMRT每次治疗为（711.4±78.7）MU,高于VMAT的（596.4±33.7）MU。结论 鼻咽癌IMRT、VMAT以及HT计划在靶区覆盖和危及器官保护上都可以达到临床要求,在靶区的适形度和均匀性上HT计划优于VMAT和IMRT,但在治疗时间和加速器的机器跳数上VMAT较有优势。     

容积旋转调强放疗和常规调强放疗技术在乳腺癌保乳术后同步推量中的剂量学比较

 目的 比较容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)和常规调强放疗(IMRT)两种技术在乳腺癌保乳术后同步推量放疗中剂量学差异。方法 随机选择10例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后患者,使用MONACO 5.1计划系统,分别设计VMAT和IMRT计划,处方剂量均为PTV_50Gy/25 f、PGTVtb60 Gy/25 f,评估两种计划靶区剂量适形指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI),以及正常器官受照剂量(Gy)、机器跳数(MU)及治疗时间。结果 VMAT计划中靶区剂量的适形度明显优于IMRT(P<0.05),而患侧肺V₅、V₁₀、V₂₀及健侧肺V₅稍高于IMRT组(P<0.05)。结论 对于乳腺癌保乳术后同步推量放疗,VMAT和IMRT计划都可以满足临床剂量学的要求,VMAT在适形度方面对于IMRT计划有优势,并缩短了治疗时间。     

胸中段食管癌适形调强放疗和三维适形放疗方案的应用探讨

目的比较胸中段食管癌适形调强放疗(IMRT)和三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)两种不同技术中计划靶区(PTV)及正常组织的受量。方法对52例ⅡB-Ⅳ期胸中段食管癌患者用同一放疗计划系统分别设计IMRT和3D-CRT根治性放疗计划,应用剂量体积直方图(DVH)比较两种方法中计划靶区和正常组织受量并且计算计划靶区适形指数(CI)和剂量不均匀指数(HI)。结果 IMRT方法的PTV适形度优于3D-CRT;脊髓剂量的最大值低于3D-CRT,但无统计学差异;心脏接受V25和V40的体积百分比低于3D-CRT;IMRT显著降低了肺部V10和V20的有效体积,但其肺部的V5大于3D-CRT。结论在可接受的放射性损伤的基础上,IMRT技术较3D-CRT能够提高行根治性放疗的ⅡB-Ⅳ期胸中段食管癌患者靶区剂量,靶区适形度高,但可使肺组织受到更大容积的低剂量照射。     

胸段食管癌患者三种放疗计划心脏和肺的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸中下段食管癌3种放疗技术心脏和肺的剂量分布。方法 搜集2015年1月至2016年2月在浙江省肿瘤医院接受治疗的15例胸中下段食管鳞癌患者资料。患者均接受胸部放射治疗,每位患者共制作3套放疗计划。调强放疗（IMRT）和容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）在RayStation 4.0v系统制作,螺旋断层放疗（TOMO）在TomoH^TM Version 2.0.5系统制作。处方剂量60 Gy/30次。比较计划体积（PTV）、心脏、心脏亚单位以及肺剂量参数。结果 PTV、心脏和肺的平均体积为（399±355）、（671±274）和（3 907±1 717） cm³。与IMRT和VMAT相比,TOMO可以降低PTV、心脏、左心房及肺的最大剂量（H=10.889、7.433、12.080、11.401,P<0.05）。3种放疗技术的适形指数和均匀性指数差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 相较于IMRT和VMAT,TOMO可以降低PTV、心脏、左心房和肺的最大剂量,但均匀性及适形性差异无统计学意义。放疗过程中心脏与肺存在相互影响,TOMO技术可能带来的临床优势尚待进一步研究证实。     

RapidArc联合主动呼吸控制技术应用于胸段食管癌调强放疗的剂量学研究

目的 探讨RapidArc联合主动呼吸控制(ABC)技术在胸段食管癌调强放疗的剂量学特点.方法 选取10例接受放疗的胸段食管癌患者,在ABC辅助下选择吸气末屏气触发方式(mDIBH),触发阈值设定为呼吸曲线峰值的80％,和自由呼吸(FB)状态下分别行定位CT扫描,应用三维治疗计划系统为每例患者设计FB下的IMRT(IMRT-FB)和双弧RapidArc( Arc-FB)、mDIBH下的3个小弧RapidArc( Arc-A BC)3种调强放疗计划.评价靶区的D2％、D98％、V95,均匀指数(HI)和适形指数(CI),正常组织的相关剂量体积参数Vx,以及总机器跳数(MU)、总控制点数( control points)和治疗时间.结果 PTV的平均体积由FB下的376 cm3减少到了mDIBH下的260cm3.mDIBH下的双肺平均体积为5964.6 cm3,而FB则为3838.8 cm3,增加了35％;mDIBH和FB状态下平均心脏体积分别为524.4和642.7 cm3.Arc-ABC计划靶区的CI、HI及D2％、D98％、V95与IMRT-FB和Arc-FB计划差异无统计学意义,双肺的V10、V20、V30、V40及平均剂量(Dmean)明显低于IMRT-FB和Arc-FB(F=4.38、5.34、4.07、3.89、4.28,P＜0.05),心脏的V20、V30、V40、Dmean及脊髓Dmax有不同程度的下降,但差异无统计学意义.Arc-ABC计划的总机器跳数和子野数也明显少于IMRT-FB计划(F=26.86、12.56,P＜0.05).结论 RapidArc联合ABC在胸段食管癌精确放疗中具有提高靶区剂量和降低肺组织受照剂量的作用.     

三维适形、逆向调强及旋转调强放疗技术对部分乳腺外照射的剂量学比较

目的 比较三维适形(3 D-CRT)、逆向调强(IMRT)及旋转调强(V-MAT)3种部分乳腺外照射(EB-PBI)治疗计划的剂量学差异.方法 选择定位影像资料完整的12例保乳术后行EB-PBI患者,每例患者分别设计3D-CRT、IMRT、V-MAT 3种治疗计划,比较3种计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受照剂量及所需机器跳数(MU)和治疗时间.结果 3D-CRT计划的靶区适形度最差,V-MAT计划的处方剂量靶区覆盖率及靶区剂量均匀性最差.3D-CRT计划中患侧肺V5、V10和平均剂量低,而患侧肺V30高;计划间患侧肺V20差异无统计学意义;V-MAT计划中15、20和25 Gy剂量包绕的同侧正常乳腺体积少;对于心脏V5、平均剂量及最大剂量、对侧肺平均剂量、甲状腺平均和最大剂量,IMRT＞ V-MAT＞ 3D-CRT,计划间两两比较差异均有统计学意义(z=-2.94 ～ -2.09,P＜0.05).3D-CRT、IMRT和V-MAT计划所需MU值分别为417.6 ±34.4、772.8±54.4和631.0±109.0,计划间两两比较差异均有统计学意义(z=-2.93、-2.76、-2.93,P＜0.05);V-MAT计划施照时间短.结论 对于部分乳腺癌的放射治疗,旋转调强计划在降低患侧靶区外正常乳腺组织受照射剂量和减少治疗时间方面优势比较明显.     

准直器角度对胸上段食管癌容积旋转调强放疗剂量的影响

目的 研究不同准直器角度对胸上段食管癌病例的剂量影响。方法 选择8例胸上段食管癌病例作为研究对象,每个病例设计准直器角度为0°、5°、10°、15°、20°、25°、30°、35°、40°和45°的10个容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）计划,比较不同角度下的靶区和危及器官各剂量参数以及总机器跳数。结果 通过比较10组不同准直器角度计划的各项指标结果,选取整体表现最佳的20°组和临床上使用较多的0°及45°组进行分析,显示正常组织全肺V₁₀、V₁₅和V₃₀差异有统计学意义（F=5.328、8.033、28.424,P < 0.05）,脊髓D_max和总机器跳数MU差异有统计学意义（F=9.608、4.464,P < 0.05）。其他指标差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论 在胸上段食管癌VMAT计划设计时,选择合适的准直器角度可以保证靶区剂量分布,减少危及器官受量,能更好地保护正常组织,并提高治疗效率。     

保乳术后固定野动态调强与容积调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后固定野动态调强与容积调强放疗治疗靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异.方法 20例左侧乳腺癌患者(均女性,24～75岁)保乳术后接受放疗,在同一患者CT影像上分别进行2野共面动态调强和容积调强(RapidArc)两种治疗计划设计.在剂量-体积直方图中读取两种计划的靶区剂量分布参数,心脏、双侧肺及对侧乳腺受照剂量和体积,对各参数的均数进行比较;并比较两者平均机器跳数和平均治疗时间的差异.结果 RapidArc较IMRT计划CTV V95%增加了0.65%(t=5.16,P=0.001),V105%下降了10.96%(t=-2.05,P=0.055),V110%下降了1.48%(t=-1.33,P=0.197).RapidArc计划的适形指数(CI)和均匀性指数(HI)均优于IMRT治疗计划,分别为0.88±0.02 vs 0.74±0.03(t=18.54,P＜0.001),1.11±0.01 Vs 1.12±0.02(t=-2.44,P=0.025).两种计划中左肺V20和Dmax比较差异无统计学意义,但在RapidArc计划中V10、V5、Dmix、Dmean明显增高,V5增高了接近30%.心脏V30和Dmax在两计划中无明显差异,而RapidArc计划的V10增加了18%,V5增加50%.RapidArc计划的右乳V5和右肺V5较IMRT分别增加了9.33%(t=9.31,P＜0.001)和3.04%(t=5.64,P＜0.001).RapidArc和IMRT平均机器跳数分别是608和437 MU(t=10.86,P＜0.001),平均治疗时间111.3和103.6 s(t=3.57,P=0.002).结论 早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺RapidAre放疗与2野动态调强放疗相比,能明显改善靶区剂量分布均匀性.对于危及器官,高剂量区两种治疗计划之间无明显差异,低剂量区RapidArc的照射范围明显增加.与2野动态调强相比,RapidArc放疗机器跳数增加,治疗时间延长.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric are modulation with RapidArc and fixed field dynamic IMRT for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.Methods Twenty patients with early left-sided breast cancer received radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.After target definition,treatment planning was performed by RapidAre and two fixed fields dynamic IMRT respectively on the same CT scan.The target dose distribution,homogeneity of the breast,and the irradiation dose and volume for the lungs,heart,and eontralateral breast were read in the dosevolume histogram (DVH) and compared between RapidAre and IMRT.The treatment delivery time and monitor units were also compared.Results In comparison with the IMRT planning,the homogeneity of clinical target volume (CTV) ,the volume proportion of 95% prescribed dose (V95%) was significantly higher by 0.65% in RapidAre (t =5.16,P = 0.001) ,and the V105% and V110% were lower by 10.96% and 1.48 % respectively,however,without statistical significance (t =-2.05 ,P =0.055 and t =-1.33 ,P =0.197).The conformal index of planning target volume (PTV) by the Rap~dAre planning was (0.88±0.02),significantly higher than that by the IMRT planning [(0.74±0.03),t = 18.54,P < 0.001].The homogeneity index (HI) of PTV by the RapidArc planning was 1.11±0.01,significantly lower than that by the IMRT planning (1.12±0.02,t =-2.44,P =0.02).There were no significant differences in the maximum dose (Dmax) and V20 for the ipsilateral lung between the RapidArc and IMRT planning,but the values of V10,V5 ,Dmin and Dmean by RapidArc planning were all significantly higher than those by the IMRT planning (all P < 0.01).The values of max dose and V30 for the heart were similar by both techniques,but the values of V10 and V5 by the RapidArc planning were significantly higher (by 18% and 50% ,respectively).The V5 of the contralateral breast and lung by the RapidArc planning were increased by 9.33% and 3.04% respectively compared to the IMRT planning.The mean MU of the RapidArc was 608 MU,significantly higher than that by the IMRT planning (437 MU,t = 10.86,P < 0.001).The treatment time by the RapidArc planning was 111.3 s,significantly longer than that by IMRT planning (103.6 s,t = 3.57,P = 0.002).Conclusions The RapidArc planning improves the dose distribution of CTV and homogeneity of PTV for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.However,it significantly enlarges the volume of normal tissues irradiated in low dose areas,prolongs the treatment delivery time,and increases the MU value in comparison with IMRT.     

Dosimetric comparison of TomoDirect,helical tomotherapy,VMAT, and ff-IMRT for upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma

BackgroundThe new TomoDirect (TD) modality offers a nonrotational option with discrete beam angles. We aim to compare dosimetric parameters of TD, helical tomotherapy (HT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT) for upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma (EC).MethodsTwenty patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 upper thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were enrolled. Four plans were generated using the same dose objectives for each patient: TD, HT, VMAT with a single arc, and ff-IMRT with 5 fields (5F). The prescribed doses were used to deliver 50.4 Gy/28F to the planning target volume (PTV50.4) and then provided a 9 Gy/5F boost to PTV59.4. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) statistics, dose uniformity, and dose homogeneity were analyzed to compare treatment plans.ResultsFor PTV59.4, the D₂, D₉₈, D_mean, and V_100% values in HT were significantly lower than other plans (all p < 0.05), and those in TD were significantly lower than VMAT and ff-IMRT (all p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the D₂ and D_mean values between VMAT and ff-IMRT techniques (p > 0.05). The homogeneity index (HI) differed significantly for the 4 techniques of TD, HT, VMAT, and ff-IMRT (0.03 ± 0.01, 0.02 ± 0.01, 0.06 ± 0.02, and 0.05 ± 0.01, respectively; p < 0.001). The HI for TD was similar to HT (p = 0.166), and had statistically significant improvement compared to VMAT (p < 0.001) and ff-IMRT (p = 0.003). In comparison with the 4 conformity indices (CIs), there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). For PTV50.4, the D₂ and D_mean values in HT were significantly lower than other plans (all p < 0.05), and those in TD were significantly lower than VMAT and ff-IMRT (all p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the D₂ and D_mean values between VMAT and ff-IMRT techniques (p > 0.05). No D₉₈ and V_100% parameters differed significantly among the 4 treatment types (p > 0.05). HT plans were provided for statistically significant improvement in HI (0.03 ± 0.01) compared to TD plans (0.05 ± 0.01, p = 0.003), VMAT (0.08 ± 0.03, p < 0.001), ff-IMRT (0.08 ± 0.01, p < 0.001). The HI revealed that TD was superior to VMAT and ff-IMRT (p < 0.05). The CI differed significantly for the 4 techniques of TD, HT, VMAT, and ff-IMRT (0.59 ± 0.10, 0.69 ± 0.11, 0.64 ± 0.09, and 0.64 ± 0.11, respectively; p = 0.035). The best CI was yielded by HT. We found no significant difference for the V₅, V₁₀, V₁₅, V₃₀, and the mean lung dose (MLD) among the 4 techniques (all p > 0.05). However, the V₂₀ differed significantly among TD, HT, VMAT, and ff-IMRT (21.50 ± 7.20%, 19.50 ± 5.55%, 17.65 ± 5.45%, and 16.35 ± 5.70%, respectively; p = 0.047). Average V₂₀ for the lungs was significantly improved by the TD plans compared to VMAT (p = 0.047), and ff-IMRT (p = 0.008). The V₅ value of the lung in TD was 49.30 ± 13.01%, lower than other plans, but there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). The D₁ of the spinal cord showed no significant difference among the 4 techniques (p = 0.056).ConclusionsAll techniques are able to provide a homogeneous and highly conformal dose distribution. The TD technique is a good option for treating upper thoracic EC involvement. It could achieve optimal low dose to the lungs and spinal cord with acceptable PTV coverage. HT is a good option as it could achieve quality dose conformality and uniformity, while TD generated superior conformality.