旋转调强与固定野调强治疗肝癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定野调强放疗(IMRT)在肝癌治疗计划中的剂量学差异。方法 选择10例肝癌患者的CT数据,分别设计IMRT计划与单弧(RA1)和双弧(RA2)计划,比较设计计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受量、正常组织受量、机器跳数以及治疗时间。结果 RA1和RA2计划靶区剂量的最大值都低于IMRT(Z=-2.090、-2.666,P＜0.05),计划90%的处方剂量的适形指数低于IMRT(Z=-2.805、-2.809,P＜0.05);危及器官胃与小肠的V40也比IMRT计划低。但IMRT左肾平均剂量低于RapidArc计划组(Z=-1.988、-2.191,P＜0.05);正常组织的V₅、V₁₀和V₁₅IMRT计划低于RapidArc计划组,V20、V25和V30IMRT计划高于RapidArc计划组。RapidArc计划机器跳数是IMRT计划的40%和46%,治疗时间是IMRT计划30%和40%。结论 两种技术设计的计划剂量分布均能满足临床要求,并且剂量分布基本一致。RapidArc计划的适形指数优于IMRT,危及器官剂量也比IMRT计划略有降低,正常组织的低剂量区RapidArc计划组与IMRT相比有先高后低的趋势,并且机器跳数少,治疗时间短。     

容积旋转调强与固定野调强在晚期宫颈癌放疗的剂量学比较及疗效观察

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）和固定野调强（IMRT）技术在宫颈癌根治性放疗的剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率及疗效。方法 回顾性分析43例局部晚期（II_b~IV）宫颈癌患者,其中22例行容积旋转调强放疗,21例行固定野调强放疗,处方剂量50.4 Gy/28次,比较两组靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率;对比两组患者的完全缓解率和有效率。结果 与IMRT计划相比,RapidArc计划的靶区适形性指数CI略好,但差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;两组计划的靶区均匀性指数HI比较,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。RapidArc计划中膀胱的V₄₀、V₅₀以及直肠的V₃₀、V₄₀、V₅₀均低于IMRT计划（t=-2.386、-2.397、-5.525、-2.883、-2.686,P < 0.05）,RapidArc计划中股骨头的平均剂量低于IMRT计划（t=-2.395,P < 0.05）。RapidArc较IMRT平均MU减少了53.15%,治疗所需平均时间缩短了62.14%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性反应发生率相近。两组患者完全缓解率和有效率相近。结论 晚期宫颈癌根治性放疗中,采用RapidArc技术可以降低危及器官受量,缩短患者的治疗时间。     

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。     

早期结外鼻腔NK/T细胞淋巴瘤固定野调强和旋转调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 探讨早期结外鼻腔NK/T细胞淋巴瘤固定野调强和旋转调强放疗的剂量学和执行效率差异。 方法 选取10例I_E ~Ⅱ_E期鼻腔NK/T细胞淋巴瘤患者,分别设计共面5野（5F）、共面9野（9F）、非共面5野（5F-N）和旋转调强（RapidArc）方案,以5F计划为参照,9F、5F-N和RapidArc计划分别与其就靶区适形度指数（CI）、均匀性指数（HI）和危及器官的受照剂量进行比较,同时比较各计划剂量验证通过率、出束跳数和治疗时间。 结果 CI值9F（0.478±0.181）、5F-N（0.465±0.121）、RapidArc（0.518±0.111）与5F（0.419±0.159）计划相比,差异无统计学意义;HI值9F（0.111±0.027）、RapidArc（0.112±0.031）显著低于5F计划的（0.136±0.038）（t=3.11、3.04,P<0.05）。9F计划晶状体D_max显著高于5F计划（健侧t=2.82,P<0.05;患侧t=3.25,P<0.05）。5F-N计划视神经D_max显著低于5F计划（健侧t=4.27,P<0.05;患侧t=2.82,P<0.05）。RapidArc计划健侧晶状体（t=3.25,P<0.05）、眼球（t=3.25,P<0.05）和视神经（t=2.57,P<0.05）D_max显著低于5F计划。此外,RapidArc计划视交叉D_max显著低于5F计划（t=7.62,P<0.05）。各计划执行效率为RapidArc >5F >5F-N >9F。结论 在剂量学和计划执行效率方面,RapidArc较共面固定野5野调强更具优势,推荐作为早期结外鼻腔NK/T细胞淋巴瘤调强放疗布野模式首选。     

旋转调强与固定野逆向调强放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学比较研究

目的 比较旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定野调强(IMRT)放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学差异。方法 针对10例多发脑转移瘤患者分别设计3种放疗计划:固定野逆向调强(IMRT),RapidArc单弧旋转调强(RA1),双弧旋转调强(RA2)。在保证计划均满足临床要求前提下,分别比较3种计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官及靶区外正常组织的受照剂量、机器跳数以及治疗时间,探讨其剂量学差异。结果 3种计划均满足临床要求,在靶区适形度和均匀性方面,RA2计划优于IMRT(Z＝-2.803、-2.094,P<0.05)和RA1(Z＝-2.448、-2.191,P＜0.05),RA1计划与IMRT计划差别不大。RA1、RA2计划中的双侧晶体、双侧眼球、脑干的最大剂量均显著低于IMRT(Z＝-2.803～-2.191,P <0.05)。RA2计划评估的双侧视神经最大剂量均显著低于IMRT(Z＝-2.293、-2.701,P<0.05)。RA1、RA2计划中的机器跳数相对于IMRT平均分别减少了43%和24%,缩短了治疗时间。结论 单弧和双弧旋转调强计划均可达到或优于IMRT计划的靶区剂量分布,能更好地降低部分危及器官的受照剂量,同时可以显著降低机器跳数和治疗实施时间。     

子野权重优化在宫颈癌术后IMRT计划中的应用研究

目的 探讨子野权重优化（SWO）技术对宫颈癌根治术后调强放疗（IMRT）计划总子野数、总机器跳数（MU）、靶区均匀性指数（HI）、适形度指数（CI）以及靶区和正常组织照射剂量的影响。方法 随机抽样选取10例接受根治术后的Ⅰ~Ⅱ期宫颈癌患者,应用ELEKTA XIO 4.62系统,采用相同的射野方向和优化参数,利用静态调强（Step & Shoot）的传统方法优化,作为S-IMRT计划;同时,应用SWO对IMRT计划做进一步的优化,作为SWO-IMRT计划。比较子野权重优化前后总子野数、总MU数的变化,同时利用剂量体积直方图（DVH）评价靶区均匀性指数（HI）、适形度指数（CI）以及靶区和正常组织照射剂量。结果 与S-IMRT计划比较,SWO-IMRT计划的平均子野数由（96±4）个降至（87±4）个（t=10.049,P<0.05）;MU数由（638.79±35.02）cGy增至（672.03±39.07）cGy（t=3.952,P<0.05）;计划靶区（PTV）最大剂量（D_max）和平均剂量（D_mean）降低（t=2.262、2.323,P<0.05）;脊髓最大剂量（D_max）由（3856.00±112.14）cGy降至（3750.00±141.38）cGy（t=3.976,P<0.05）;SWO-IMRT计划膀胱V₃₀、V₄₀、V₅₀,直肠V₃₀,左侧股骨头V₅₀的剂量低于S-IMRT计划（t=4.223、5.801、7.534、2.451、2.269、3.976,P <0.05）;对于靶区剂量均匀性指数（HI）、适形度指数（CI）、直肠V₄₀、V₅₀,左侧股骨头V₃₀、V₄₀、V₅₀,右侧股骨头V₄₀、V₅₀,差异无统计学意义。结论 SWO技术应用于宫颈癌根治术后IMRT计划中,总子野数减少,总MU数增加,脊髓和膀胱剂量降低。既降低了脊髓和膀胱的不良反应,也为肿瘤剂量的提高提供了可能。SWO技术为临床工作提供了一种可选择的优化工具。     

乳腺癌保乳术后部分乳腺三种放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的 比较容积弧形调强（VMAT）、固定野动态调强（IMRT）及三维适形放疗（3D-CRT）技术对乳腺癌保乳术后采用部分乳腺放疗的剂量学差异。方法 选取20例临床分期为T_1-2N₀M₀的早期乳腺癌保乳术后患者进行VMAT,并同时设计IMRT及3D-CRT,比较3种计划的剂量学参数,包括剂量-体积直方图（DVH）、靶区剂量适形度、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间。结果 IMRT及VMAT计划靶区剂量分布优于3D-CRT计划,其中最大剂量,平均剂量及适形指数（CI）组间比较差异具有统计学意义（F=14.86、8.57、18.23,P<0.05）。正常组织受量：VMAT计划在患侧乳腺V₅上优于IMRT及3D-CRT计划（F=5.83,P<0.05）;IMRT在患侧肺V₂₀、V₅及D₅上有优势（F=16.39、3.62、4.81,P<0.05）;在对侧肺的统计中,IMRT计划在最大剂量及D₅上可以得到比VMAT和3D-CRT更低的剂量（F=3.99、3.43,P<0.05）;VMAT、3D-CRT和IMRT计划所需机器跳数值分别为621.0±111.9、707.3±130.9、1161.4±315.6,计划间的差异有统计学意义（F=31.30,P<0.05）。VMAT、3D-CRT和IMRT计划所需治疗时间分别为（1.5±0.2）、（7.0±1.6）、（11.5±1.9）min。结论 IMRT和VMAT计划靶区剂量分布优于3D-CRT计划,而不提高患侧肺剂量。对于部分乳腺癌的放疗,容积弧形调强放疗在降低机器跳数和减少治疗时间方面具有明显优势。     

小细胞肺癌三种全脑预防性照射计划的剂量学比较

目的 比较小细胞肺癌(SCLC)全脑预防性照射(PCI)3D-CRT、IMRT、RapidArc 3种计划方式的剂量学差异,为制定最佳PCI放疗方案提供指导。方法 选取10例SCLC患者颅脑CT,分别设计3D-CRT、IMRT及RapidArc 3种放疗计划。根据剂量体积直方图,评价靶区的D_2%、D_98%、V₉₅、V₁₀₀、均匀性指数(HI)、适形性指数(CI)以及危及器官(OAR)受量,比较机器跳数(MU)的差异。 结果 IMRT及RapidArc的靶区剂量学参数(CI、HI、D_2%、D_98%、V₉₅、V₁₀₀)均优于3D-CRT,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。IMRT、RapidArc较3D-CRT显著降低左右视神经D_max、左右腮腺D_mean及脑干D_max的受量,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);相反,3D-CRT能显著减少左右晶状体的D_max和左右眼球的D_max、D_mean受量,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。IMRT及RapidArc在靶区和危及器官受量方面无差异。3D-CRT、IMRT和RapidArc计划的平均MU分别为287.8、1388.8和346.6。 结论 IMRT及RapidArc较3D-CRT具有一定的剂量学优势,3D-CRT能减少晶状体及眼球的受量,治疗时间短。     

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.     

乳腺癌保乳术后两野与多野动态调强的剂量学研究

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后切线2野动态调强与非共面多野调强放疗治疗靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异。方法 选取40例接受保乳术后放疗的左侧乳腺癌患者,在同一患者CT影像上,利用相同优化条件分别进行切线2野和非共面3、4、5野4种调强治疗计划设计。比较4种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 非共面4、5野调强计划适形度指数（CI）和均匀性指数（HI）均优于切线2野调强计划（P<0.05）,临床靶区（PTV）最大剂量（D_max）小于2野调强计划（P<0.05）,PTV最小剂量（D_min）大于2野调强计划（P<0.05）。3野与2野计划间无明显差异。4种计划的右乳接受5 Gy照射的百分体积（V₅）、心脏接受30 Gy照射的百分体积（V₃₀）及平均剂量（D_mean）、左肺接受20和5 Gy照射的百分体积（V₂₀、V₅）、平均剂量（D_mean）无明显差异,而机器跳数间差异有统计学意义（F=25.63,P<0.05）,2野调强跳数最少,5野最多。结论 保乳术后非共面4、5野调强计划与切线2野调强计划相比,靶区剂量分布更好,不明显增加正常组织、器官的受照射剂量,但机器跳数明显增加。     

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.     

The use of RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy to deliver stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy to intracranial and extracranial targets

Twenty-three targets in 16 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were analyzed in terms of dosimetric homogeneity, target conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, monitor unit (MU) usage, and beam-on time per fraction using RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. multifield sliding-window intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patients underwent computed tomography simulation with site-specific immobilization. Magnetic resonance imaging fusion and optical tracking were incorporated as clinically indicated. Treatment planning was performed using Eclipse v8.6 to generate sliding-window IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc RapidArc plans. Dosimetric parameters used for target analysis were RTOG conformity index (CI_RTOG), homogeneity index (HI_RTOG), inverse Paddick Conformity Index (PCI), D_mean and D5–D95. OAR sparing was analyzed in terms of D_max and D_mean. Treatment delivery was evaluated based on measured beam-on times delivered on a Varian Trilogy linear accelerator and recorded MU values. Dosimetric conformity, homogeneity, and OAR sparing were comparable between IMRT, 1-arc RapidArc and 2-arc RapidArc plans. Mean beam-on times ± SD for IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc treatments were 10.5 ± 7.3, 2.6 ± 1.6, and 3.0 ± 1.1 minutes, respectively. Mean MUs were 3041, 1774, and 1676 for IMRT, 1-, and 2-arc plans, respectively. Although dosimetric conformity, homogeneity, and OAR sparing were similar between these techniques, SRS and SBRT fractions treated with RapidArc were delivered with substantially less beam-on time and fewer MUs than IMRT. The rapid delivery of SRS and SBRT with RapidArc improved workflow on the linac with these otherwise time-consuming treatments and limited the potential for intrafraction organ and patient motion, which can cause significant dosimetric errors. These clinically important advantages make image-guided RapidArc useful in the delivery of SRS and SBRT to intracranial and extracranial targets.     

乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强与三维适形野中野放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强(IMRT)与三维适形野中野瘤床同步加量(FIF)两种放疗技术的剂量学差异。方法 选择9例左侧早期乳腺癌保乳术后患者,分别设计IMRT与FIF两组放疗计划,处方剂量为乳房靶区50.4 Gy,分28次,每次1.8 Gy;瘤床靶区61.6 Gy,分28次,每次2.2 Gy。比较两组计划的靶区适形度及危及器官受量,并比较两者的计划优化和治疗时间。结果 IMRT的全乳靶区适形度(CI)为1.82±0.16,低于FIF的2.21±0.15(t=2.08,P<0.05);瘤床靶区适形度为1.19±0.04,低于FIF的1.59±0.11(t=3.97,P<0.05)。两组计划危及器官同侧肺的V₂₀和心脏的V₃₀无明显差异。FIF对侧肺的Dmax和Dmean分别是(5.41±2.76)和(0.51±0.10) Gy, IMRT分别为(25.72±2.61)和(7.46±0.39) Gy(t=-22.44、-21.14,P<0.05)。对侧乳房的Dmax和Dmean,FIF为(8.50±5.61)和(0.46±0.11) Gy,IMRT为(27.73±4.29)和(6.38±0.48) Gy(t=-5.66、-14.83,P<0.05)。对于对侧肺和乳房的低剂量照射区V₅,FIF为(0.09±0.09)%和(0.45±0.45)%,低于IMRT的(84.66±3.06)%和(60.79±4.94)%(t=-28.19、-12.80,P<0.05)。在计划优化及治疗时间方面,FIF与IMRT优化时间分别为(61.57±0.89)min和(241.28±1.06)min,单次治疗时间分别为(16.14±1.42)min和(29.85±0.59) min(t=-32.35、-8.82,P<0.05)。结论 IMRT改善了靶区适形度,但是增加了对侧肺和对侧乳房的受照剂量。FIF在计划优化时间及治疗时间方面有优势。     

Dosimetric research on intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy planning for left breast cancer after breast-preservation surgery

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has played an important role in breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-preservation surgery. Our aim was to study the dosimetric and implementation features/feasibility between IMRT and intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy (Varian RapidArc, Varian, Palo Alto, CA). The forward IMRT plan (f-IMRT), the inverse IMRT, and the RapidArc plan (RA) were generated for 10 patients. Afterward, we compared the target dose distribution of the 3 plans, radiation dose on organs at risk, monitor units, and treatment time. All 3 plans met clinical requirements, with RA performing best in target conformity. In target homogeneity, there was no statistical significance between RA and IMRT, but both of homogeneity were less than f-IMRT's. With regard to the V₅ and V₁₀ of the left lung, those in RA were higher than in f-IMRT but were lower than in IMRT; for V₂₀ and V₃₀, the lowest was observed in RA; and in the V₅ and V₁₀ of the right lung, as well as the mean dose in normal-side breast and right lung, there was no statistically significance difference between RA and IMRT, and the lowest value was observed in f-IMRT. As for the maximum dose in the normal-side breast, the lowest value was observed in RA. Regarding monitor units (MUs), those in RA were higher than in f-IMRT but were lower than in IMRT. Treatment time of RA was 84.6% and 88.23% shorter than f-IMRT and IMRT, respectively, on average. Compared with f-IMRT and IMRT, RA performed better in target conformity and can reduce high-dose volume in the heart and left lung—which are related to complications—significantly shortening treatment time as well. Compared with IMRT, RA can also significantly reduce low-dose volume and MUs of the afflicted lung.     

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.     

Dosimetric Comparison of RapidArc with Fixed Gantry Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment for Multiple Liver Metastases Radiotherapy

We wanted to compare the dosimetric difference and treatment efficiency of RapidArc and fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) for multiple liver metastases. Computed tomography datasets of 10 patients were studied retrospectively. IMRT plans were generated using 5 fields and RapidArc using either 1 or 2 arcs. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and the normal tissue were compared. Monitor units and treatment time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency. Both RapidArc and IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage. There was no statistically significant difference for the maximum and the minimum dose of PTV. RapidArc plans achieved an improved conformity index compared with IMRT (RA1 = 1.68 ± 0.27, RA2 = 1.61 ± 0.25, IMRT = 1.80 ± 0.37). For OARs, all techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc plans had a lower dose in V₄₀ of small bowel than IMRT, but were higher in mean dose of kidneys. Concerning the V₅, V₁₀, and V₁₅ of healthy tissue, RapidArc plans were higher than IMRT. However, the V₂₀, V₂₅, and V₃₀ of healthy tissue in RapidArc plans were lower than IMRT. Monitor units per fraction of RapidArc plans were about 40% or 46% of IMRT. Compared with IMRT plans, treatment time of RapidArc plans were reduced by 60% or 70%. All techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc showed statistical improvements in conformity index and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage. This, in combination with fewer monitor units and short delivery time, can lead to clinically significant advances for the treatment of multiple liver metastases.