直肠癌术后盆腔不同放疗技术的剂量学研究

目的 比较直肠癌术后盆腔三维适形放疗(3DCRT)、适形调强放疗(IMRT)和简化调强(sIMRT)技术的三维剂量学特点,为直肠癌术后辅助放疗照射方法的优选提供依据。方法 选择Ⅱ～Ⅲ期直肠癌经腹前切除(Dixon手术)术后盆腔放疗的10例患者分别行3DCRT、sIMRT和IMRT3种计划设计,利用剂量体积直方图评价不同照射技术对靶区和正常组织照射剂量和靶区适形指数(CI)及剂量不均匀性指数(HI)。结果 不同放疗技术的剂量学研究:1CI为IMRT＞sIMRT＞3DCRT(t=7.48、9.13,P＜0.05)。23种治疗计划PTV靶区剂量分布的均匀度3DCRT最好,IMRT和sIMRT相似,但两者差异无统计学意义。3对膀胱的保护,IMRT明显优于3DCRT,sIMRT稍低于IMRT;对小肠的保护,sIMRT优于3DCRT,但IMRT并不比sIMRT具有更多优势;对结肠的保护,3种计划差异无统计学意义;对股骨头的保护,IMRT及sIMRT均明显好于3DCRT。IMRT、sIMRT对上述危及器官的保护优势主要体现在高剂量区。43种不同放疗技术的机器子野跳数sIMRT的子野跳数(543.0±69.8)与3DCRT技术(569.7±48.7)相当,但显著低于IMRT计划(770.3±73.1)。结论 在直肠癌术后放疗中sIMRT放疗技术具有最优性价比。     

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。     

乳腺癌保乳术后全乳加瘤床补量照射不同治疗计划的比较

目的 探讨乳腺癌保乳术后全乳加瘤床照射不同治疗计划靶区剂量适形度、靶区剂量分布均匀性及肺脏、心脏和对侧乳腺受照剂量体积的差异。方法 选择术腔各边界放置银夹且无腋窝淋巴结转移的12 例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后患者, 每例患者分别制定常规放疗(CRT)、无挡肺子野调强放疗(IMRT-F)、挡肺子野调强(IMRT-F-L) 和瘤床同步整合补量调强放疗(SIB-IMRT) 计划。比较不同治疗计划全乳靶区和瘤床靶区的剂量适形度和剂量分布均匀性, 对比不同治疗计划肺脏、心脏和对侧乳腺受照剂量体积。结果 各计划中V_{处方剂量- PTV}1 V_PTV1、V_PTV1 处方剂量 V_PTV2、V_{处方剂量-PTV2 V- 处方剂量、VPTV2-处方剂量 VPTV2组间差异均有统计学意义;CRT 计划中患侧肺V20显著高于不同方式的IMRT 计划, 但不同方式的IMRT 计划之间V20差异无统计学意义;CRT 计划中心脏受照剂量显著高于IMRT 和SIB-I MRT 计划。CRT 计划中对侧乳腺最大照射剂量 Dmax和平均剂量Dmean明显高于不同实现方式的IMRT计划, 但不同实现方式的IMRT 计划中 Dmax和Dmean差异无统计学意义。结论 IMRT-F、IMRT-F-L、SIB-I MRT 计划均显著优于 CRT 计划, 而不同方式I MRT 计划间除个别参数外差异无统计学意义。}     

乳腺癌术后放疗3种治疗计划的剂量学研究

目的 评估螺旋断层调强放疗(helical tomotherapy,HT)、常规直线加速器逆向调强放疗(IMRT)和三维适形放疗(3D- CRT)3种治疗计划对乳腺癌术后胸壁照射的剂量影响和正常组织受照剂量体积对比。方法 选择10例早期乳腺癌改良根治术后患者CT定位图像,由同一医生勾画PTV,统一处方剂量50 Gy/ 25次。每例图像分别做HT、IMRT和3D- CRT 3种治疗计划,并对心脏、健侧肺和患侧肺受照射剂量体积、靶区适形度指数、剂量均匀指数和处方剂量所覆盖的靶体积等物理参数进行比较。结果 95%和100%的处方剂量覆盖的PTV体积在HT、IMRT和3D- CRT组分别为99.13%和95.87%、97.80%和94.05%、96.37%和87.29%。HT、IMRT 和3D-CRT组的适形指数和靶区均匀指数分别为0.80±0.10和1.09±0.03、0.65±0.07和1.14±0.02、0.40±0.08和1.17±0.04。心脏V₅~V₂₀以3D- CRT组最少,其次是HT组。患侧肺V₅接受的照射剂量体积以3D- CRT组最小,与HT和IMRT两组相比差异均有统计学意义。健侧肺V₅和V₁₀以3D- CRT组最少。结论 乳腺癌术后胸壁照射的靶区适形度和剂量均匀指数HT组最好;心脏、健侧肺和患侧肺低剂量区最小的依次是3D-CRT、HT和IMRT组。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

宫颈癌术后螺旋断层放疗与常规加速器调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 研究宫颈癌术后螺旋断层放疗(helical tomotherapy,HT)与常规静态调强放疗(IMRT)的剂量学特点。方法 采用10例宫颈癌术后患者CT图像,统一勾画靶区及危及器官(膀胱、直肠、小肠及双侧股骨头),分别传输至HT计划系统和IMRT计划系统,比较两组计划剂量体积直方图、适形度指数(CI)、均匀指数(HI)和危及器官所接受的照射剂量和体积,统一给予阴道残端60 Gy/25次,亚临床病灶50 Gy/25次,同时限定膀胱、直肠、小肠、股骨头等危及器官受照射剂量与体积。统一应用50 Gy处方剂量评价和比较CI和HI。结果 HT组适形指数(0.94±0.03)和均匀指数(1.28±0.02)均明显好于IMRT组(0.85±0.01和1.36±0.03)(t =5.12和-6.34, P<0.01);HT组PTV平均剂量为51.77Gy显著低于IMRT组54.53Gy(t =-8.01, P<0.05);HT组膀胱、直肠和小肠最大剂量、平均剂量、V₃₀、V₄₀和V₅₀照射体积均显著低于IMRT组;HT组左、右侧股骨头最大剂量、平均剂量、V₃₀和V₄₀照射体积均显著低于IMRT组。结论 HT与IMRT计划均有较好的靶区剂量分布,但HT组在适形指数、均匀指数及对周围危及器官的保护均比IMRT组有明显优势。     

宫颈癌调强放疗中靶区变化与剂量分析

目的 通过螺旋断层放疗系统(TOMO)观察宫颈癌治疗过程中,肿瘤及邻近组织器官移动所导致的靶区受照剂量的改变。方法 选取2013年8月至2014年2月于本院行TOMO治疗的5例宫颈癌患者,每次治疗前行兆伏级CT(MVCT)扫描与计划CT图像配准后,重新计算剂量分布并勾画肿瘤及靶区。分析分次治疗间肿瘤与靶区体积、位移与受照剂量之间的关系。结果 5例患者外照射结束时宫颈肿物体积、最大径分别平均下降68.90%、26.91%(t=5.21、8.39,P<0.05)。肿瘤、子宫、临床靶区(CTV)质心左右、前后、头脚方向中位位移分别为-1.43、-7.72、0.02、0.40、-1.24、-6.51、-0.43、-1.68和-0.22 mm。CTV中位V_95%为99.40%(95.96%~100%),中位漏照体积为6.94 cm³(0~32.30 cm³)。结论 宫颈癌放疗中,肿瘤变化、位置的移动与生理运动等因素的影响,使靶区实际受照剂量与初始计划存在差异,部分靶区漏照,在图像引导放疗(IGRT)下,漏照体积较少。     

鼻咽癌调强放疗中实施同一计划对剂量的影响

目的 探讨鼻咽癌调强放疗过程中实施同一治疗计划的可行性。方法 选10例采用调强放射治疗的鼻咽癌患者,用Pinnacle³制定IMRT计划。在患者放疗中期重新行CT定位扫描,把基于初次定位CT图像所做的IMRT计划复制到重新定位CT图像上,使得照射野参数保持一致,测得基于两套图像计划中的肿瘤靶区、脊髓、脑干和腮腺的受量。统计在整个放疗过程中如果实施同一计划,患者靶区及各器官的剂量变化率。结果 两组计划相比,等中心层面外轮廓左右和前后长度平均缩小8%、3%。靶区PTV₁(D₉₅)减少0.6%~5.3%;放疗中期和放疗前相比右侧和左侧腮腺体积分别缩小13.1%~41.4%、12.0%~49.0%;右侧和左侧腮腺平均剂量增加5.6%~45.1%、3.3%~32.2%;脊髓最大剂量变化为-4.1%~13.9%;脑干剂量变化为-3.9%~9.3%。结论 对于采用鼻咽癌调强放射治疗的患者,在不考虑摆位误差的影响因素下,由于靶区及正常组织显著变化等因素影响有重新定位修改计划的必要性。     

Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT) as adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer: Dosimetric comparisons with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)

To compare the dosimetric differences between the single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT), 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in treatment planning for gastric cancer as adjuvant radiotherapy. Twelve patients were retrospectively analyzed. In each patient's case, the parameters were compared based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the sVMAT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT plans, respectively. Three techniques showed similar target dose coverage. The maximum and mean doses of the target were significantly higher in the sVMAT plans than that in 3D-CRT plans and in the 3D-CRT/IMRT plans, respectively, but these differences were clinically acceptable. The IMRT and sVMAT plans successfully achieved better target dose conformity, reduced the V_20/30, and mean dose of the left kidney, as well as the V_20/30 of the liver, compared with the 3D-CRT plans. And the sVMAT technique reduced the V₂₀ of the liver much significantly. Although the maximum dose of the spinal cord were much higher in the IMRT and sVMAT plans, respectively (mean 36.4 vs 39.5 and 40.6 Gy), these data were still under the constraints. Not much difference was found in the analysis of the parameters of the right kidney, intestine, and heart. The IMRT and sVMAT plans achieved similar dose distribution to the target, but superior to the 3D-CRT plans, in adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer. The sVMAT technique improved the dose sparings of the left kidney and liver, compared with the 3D-CRT technique, but showed few dosimetric advantages over the IMRT technique. Studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical benefits of the VMAT treatment for patients with gastric cancer after surgery in the future.     

三种局部补量技术在晚期宫颈癌放疗中的应用研究

目的 探讨三维腔内联合组织间插植（IC/IS BT）、三维腔内（ICBT）联合调强 （ICBT+IMRT）以及单纯IMRT技术在局部晚期宫颈癌治疗中的剂量学差异。方法 选取16例接受三维近距离治疗的局部晚期宫颈癌患者,在原IC/IS BT计划的基础上分别设计ICBT+IMRT和单纯 IMRT计划,研究3种计划中肿瘤靶区和危及器官（OARs）的剂量学差异。结果 共制定75个后装治疗计划,其中IC/IS BT、ICBT+IMRT和单纯 IMRT各25个。 ICBT+IMRT与IC/IS BT计划的靶区体积剂量D₉₀差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）, OARs的剂量比较低。单纯IMRT计划中OARs受量相对较大,且V₆₀明显偏高（与IC/IS BT相比,t=6.77、10.37、4.61、2.83,P<0.05）。结论 ICBT+IMRT计划的肿瘤靶区剂量覆盖较好且OARs受剂量低,可以作为IC/IS BT替代治疗手段。单纯 IMRT技术虽然靶区覆盖度较好,但OARs保护差,不适用于晚期宫颈癌的局部补量治疗。     

宫颈癌放疗中的快速旋转调强计划和调强计划比较

目的 探讨快速旋转调强(RapidArc)计划和固定野调强计划(IMRT)的优劣.方法 选择10例宫颈癌病例,在Eclipse 8.6计划系统上分别对其进行单弧、双弧及三弧RapidArc和固定野凋强放疗计划设计,依次分别用Arc 1、Arc 2、Arc 3和IMRT表示.比较4者的计划制作及治疗时间、靶区及危及器官剂量分布差异.结果 10例病例的Arc 1、Arc 2、Arc 3和IMRT计划设计时间平均值分别为112、131、154和46 min,在瓦里安IX加速器上的治疗时间平均值分别为2.15、3.32、4.48和6.95 min,平均剂量分别为48.99、49.40、49.51和48.65 Gy,靶区均匀指数分别为1.11、1.07、1.06和1.12,靶区适形指数分别为0.73、0.87、0.87和0.79.IMRT计划的直肠、膀胱和小肠等危及器官受量最小,4种计划的股骨颈受量相似.结论 RapidArc计划在靶区剂量分布、均匀度、适形度以及治疗时间方面占优势,IMRT计划在计划的剂量计算时间和危及器官的保护方面占优势.总体临床应用上RapidArc计划优于IMRT计划.

Abstract：

Objective To explore the advantages and disadvantages between the RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan (IMRT).Methods Ten cases of cervical cancer,aged 55 (36-70),who were to receive post-operative radiotherapy were selected randomly.Single arc (Arc 1),two arcs (Arc 2),and three arc (Arc 3) RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan were designed respectively in the Eclipse 8.6 planning system.The designing,treatment time,target area,and dose distribution of organs at risk by these 4 planning techniques were compared.Results The values of average planned treatment time by the Arc 1,Arc 2,and Arc 3 ten cases was 98,155,185,and 46 min,respectively.The values of average treatment time in the Varian IX accelerator were 2.15,3.32,4.48,and 6.95 min,respectively.The average mean doses were (48.99±1.08),(49.40±0.51) ,(49.51±0.62) ,and (48.65±0.92) Gy,respectively.The values of homogeneity index (HI) of target were 1.11±0.07,1.07±0.02,1.06±0.02,and 1.12±0.05,respectively.The values of eonformal index (CI) of target were 0.73±0.13,0.87±0.06,0.87±0.06,and 0.79±0.06,respectively.The doses at rectum,bladder,and small intestine calculated by IMRT plan were the lowest,and the doses at the femoral neck calculated by these 4 plans were similar.Conclusions The RapidArc plan is superior in dose distribution at target,HI,CI,and treatment time to IMRT,but IMRT plan is superior to RapidArc in planned dose calculation time and protection of organs at risk.However,in general,the RapidArc plan is better in clinical application than IMRT plan.     

早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺调强放疗的临床分析

目的 观察分析早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺调强放疗剂量学优势、临床疗效及不良反应。方法 搜集2004年10月至2005年8月收治的103例早期乳腺癌保乳术后患者,比较全乳腺逆向调强和常规切线野治疗计划靶区的均匀性和心脏、肺受照剂量,以及调强放疗临床不良反应、美容效果及疗效。结果 调强放疗、常规放疗临床靶区的95%~107%处方剂量的平均体积百分比分别为95.8%±4.90%、84.0%±20.7% (t=9.60,P<0.01);同侧受照剂量>20 Gy正常肺组织占全肺体积(V₂₀)的百分比分别为15.70%±4.64%、23.11%±7.88% (t=-13.3,P<0. 01);63例左侧乳腺癌患者心脏V₃₀分别为4.44%±3.93%、15.55%±10.89% (t=-11.3,P<0. 01)。1、2年美容效果优良率均为100%。1、2、3年局部控制率分别为99%、99%、98%;1、2、3年无瘤生存率分别为99%、99%、96%。放疗结束时急性皮肤反应1级98例,2级5例。结论 乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺调强与常规切线野照射相比,能明显改善靶区剂量分布、保护周围正常组织;局部疗效好,临床不良反应小。     

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment of gastric cancer

Radiation therapy plays an integral role in the treatment of gastric cancer in the postsurgery setting, the inoperable/palliative setting, and, as in the case of the current report, in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery. Typically, anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) or 3-field techniques are used. In this report, we explore the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment in a patient whose care was transferred to our institution after 3-field radiotherapy (RT) was given to a dose of 30 Gy at an outside institution. If the 3-field plan were continued to 50 Gy, the volume of irradiated liver receiving greater than 30 Gy would have been unacceptably high. To deliver the final 20 Gy, an opposed parallel AP/PA plan and an IMRT plan were compared to the initial 3-field technique for coverage of the target volume as well as dose to the kidneys, liver, small bowel, and spinal cord. Comparison of the 3 treatment techniques to deliver the final 20 Gy revealed reduced median and maximum dose to the whole kidney with the IMRT plan. For this 20-Gy boost, the volume of irradiated liver was lower for both the IMRT plan and the AP/PA plan vs. the 3-field plan. Comparing the IMRT boost plan to the AP/PA boost-dose range (<10 Gy) in comparison to the AP/PA plan; however, the IMRT plan irradiated a smaller liver volume within the higher dose region (>10 Gy) in comparison to the AP/PA plan. The IMRT boost plan also irradiated a smaller volume of the small bowel compared to both the 3-field plan and the AP/PA plan, and also delivered lower dose to the spinal cord in comparison to the AP/PA plan. Comparison of the composite plans revealed reduced dose to the whole kidney using IMRT. The V20 for the whole kidney volume for the composite IMRT plan was 30% compared to approximately 60% for the composite AP/PA plan. Overall, the dose to the liver receiving greater than 30 Gy was lower for the composite IMRT plan and was well below acceptable limits. In conclusion, our study suggests a dosimetric benefit of IMRT over conventional planning, and suggests an important role for IMRT in the neoadjuvant treatment of gastric cancer.     

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment of gastric cancer

Radiation therapy plays an integral role in the treatment of gastric cancer in the postsurgery setting, the inoperable/palliative setting, and, as in the case of the current report, in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery. Typically, anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) or 3-field techniques are used. In this report, we explore the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment in a patient whose care was transferred to our institution after 3-field radiotherapy (RT) was given to a dose of 30 Gy at an outside institution. If the 3-field plan were continued to 50 Gy, the volume of irradiated liver receiving greater than 30 Gy would have been unacceptably high. To deliver the final 20 Gy, an opposed parallel AP/PA plan and an IMRT plan were compared to the initial 3-field technique for coverage of the target volume as well as dose to the kidneys, liver, small bowel, and spinal cord. Comparison of the 3 treatment techniques to deliver the final 20 Gy revealed reduced median and maximum dose to the whole kidney with the IMRT plan. For this 20-Gy boost, the volume of irradiated liver was lower for both the IMRT plan and the AP/PA plan vs. the 3-field plan. Comparing the IMRT boost plan to the AP/PA boost-dose range (<10 Gy) in comparison to the AP/PA plan; however, the IMRT plan irradiated a smaller liver volume within the higher dose region (>10 Gy) in comparison to the AP/PA plan. The IMRT boost plan also irradiated a smaller volume of the small bowel compared to both the 3-field plan and the AP/PA plan, and also delivered lower dose to the spinal cord in comparison to the AP/PA plan. Comparison of the composite plans revealed reduced dose to the whole kidney using IMRT. The V20 for the whole kidney volume for the composite IMRT plan was 30% compared to approximately 60% for the composite AP/PA plan. Overall, the dose to the liver receiving greater than 30 Gy was lower for the composite IMRT plan and was well below acceptable limits. In conclusion, our study suggests a dosimetric benefit of IMRT over conventional planning, and suggests an important role for IMRT in the neoadjuvant treatment of gastric cancer.     

鼻咽癌时间调节化疗诱导加同期调强放疗的疗效分析

目的 探讨顺铂+氟尿嘧啶(PF)方案时间调节化疗诱导加同期调强放疗(IMRT)治疗鼻咽癌的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析48例初治鼻咽癌患者行PF方案时间调节化疗诱导联合同期放化疗的疗效。将鼻咽和颈部的靶体积划分为鼻咽大体肿瘤体积(GTV_nx)、颈部大体肿瘤体积(GTV_nd)、临床靶体积1(CTV₁)和临床靶体积2(CTV₂)。GTV_nx、GTV_nd、CTV₁、CTV₂处方剂量分别73.92~77.88、69.96、60.06~66.00、50.96~56.00 Gy,采用传统照射分割方式。采用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析。RTOG／EORTC标准评价急性反应和晚期损伤。结果 完全缓解(CR)20例,占41.6%,部分缓解(PR)23例,占47.9%,稳定(SD)2例,占4.2%。肿瘤局部控制率为89.6%,1、2、4年的生存率分别是93.8%、79.2%、64.5%。多数患者仅表现为1~2级急性反应和0~1级晚期损伤,未观察到4级急性反应和晚期损伤。剂量体积分布直方图(DVH)分析显示IMRT提高了靶体积照射总剂量和分次剂量,减少了危及器官受照总剂量和分次剂量。结论 PF方案时间调节化疗诱导加同期配合IMRT是鼻咽癌安全的治疗方案。     

三种调强放疗技术对鼻咽癌患者下颈部亚临床靶区剂量分布的影响

目的 比较3种不同调强放疗技术对鼻咽癌患者下颈部和锁骨上区亚临床靶区剂量分布均匀性和正常组织受量。方法 3种照射方法分别为颈部切线野技术,机架角度分别为180°、150°、120°、90°、270°、240°、210°的7野调强技术,机架角度分别为180°、150°、120°、90°、0°、270°、240°、210°的8野调强技术。利用剂量分布和剂量体积直方图比较3种不同照射技术的剂量均匀性以及正常组织受量,高剂量区域用受照剂量>60 Gy体积占全体积(V₆₀)百分比比较,执行效率用子野数目和总机器跳数比较。结果 3种调强治疗技术的处方剂量均能包括计划靶区(PTV₂),但剂量分布存在差别,V₆₀分别为65%、10%和3%。3种技术中脊髓最大受量分别为42.0、48.9和45.1 Gy,气管平均剂量分别32.92、52.17和36.56 Gy。结论 颈部切线野技术方法简单,但下颈部和锁骨上区剂量分布非常不均匀。7野调强技术靶区剂量分布有所改善,但在气管和喉所在区域以及靶区外产生剂量重叠区,脊髓受量也较高。8野调强技术靶区和正常组织剂量分布都明显改善。