3种不同放疗技术在左侧乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较3种调强放疗技术在早期左侧乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺放疗中的剂量学差异。 方法 回顾性分析2019年3月至8月在西安交通大学第一附属医院治疗的12例早期左侧乳腺癌保乳术后女性患者,年龄32~50（42.4±6.8）岁。分别设计基于固定角度适形调强放疗的混合调强（3DCRT+IMRT）、容积旋转调强放疗的混合调强（3DCRT+VMAT）和切线弧容积旋转调强放疗计划（t-VMAT）,并比较3种放疗计划的计划靶区、危及器官剂量参数以及治疗效率的差异。组间数据比较采用配对t检验。 结果 3种调强放疗计划的靶区剂量分布和危及器官受量均能满足临床要求。3DCRT+IMRT和t-VMAT两种计划相比,3DCRT+VMAT的靶区剂量学指标适形性指数（0.84±0.05对0.74±0.06对0.79±0.06）和均匀性指数（0.10±0.03对0.14±0.03对0.13±0.03）最优,差异均有统计学意义（t=?9.01~6.47,均P<0.05）;3DCRT+IMRT对患侧（左）肺的V₅[（35.92±8.01）%对（49.33±12.05）%对（60.58±12.94）%]、V₁₀[（25.50±6.91）%对(26.92±7.23）%对（41.25±10.37）%]、D_mean[（10.14±2.43）Gy对（11.07±2.88）Gy对（14.52±3.32）Gy]和健侧（右）肺的V₅[（0.50±1.45）%对（2.17±3.76）%对（3.00±4.94）%]、D_mean[（0.55±0.21）Gy对（1.79±0.58）Gy对1.75±0.70）Gy]及健侧（右）乳腺的V₅[（0.17±0.58）%对（1.92±4.10）%对（8.25±8.61）%]、D_mean[（0.86±0.38）%对（1.65±0.45）%对（2.46±0.86）%]的保护最好。3DCRT+VMAT的心脏V₃₀[（4.50±2.88）%对（5.00±3.25）%对（8.42±2.78）%]、V₄₀[（2.50±2.11）%对（3.25±2.53）%对（4.58±2.07）%]明显优于3DCRT+IMRT和t-VMAT,且差异均有统计学意义（t=?17.11~3.45,均P<0.05）。3DCRT+IMRT的平均机器跳数最小（280.90±52.18）,t-VMAT的治疗时间最短。 结论 3DCRT+IMRT在低剂量区（<20 Gy）对健侧肺、患侧肺,健侧乳腺等危及器官的保护比较好,3DCRT+VMAT在提高靶区的均匀性和适形性方面有明显优势,且在高剂量区（>20 Gy）对患侧肺及心脏保护更好,t-VMAT缩短了治疗时间,提高了治疗效率和患者舒适度。     

宫颈癌术后容积旋转调强放疗与5野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的比较宫颈癌术后容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）与5野调强放疗（5F-IMRT）计划的剂量学差异，并在危及器官保护方面进行分析。方法选择10例宫颈癌术后放疗的5F-IMRT计划，按相同的剂量限制对每例患者行单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT计划设计，比较3种计划的靶区剂量、适形度指数、均匀性指数、危及器官剂量及加速器跳数。组间比较采用单因素方差分析检验，组间两两比较采用LSD检验。结果单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT均能满足靶区处方剂量的要求，在靶区最大剂量、平均剂量、适形度指数和均匀性指数上，双弧VMAT与5F-IMRT计划相当，单弧VMAT计划最差，差异有统计学意义（F=24.102、13.710、5.919、11.045，均P < 0.05）；靶区最小剂量比较，3种计划差异无统计学意义（F=3.323，P>0.05）。单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT计划的加速器跳数明显少于5F-IMRT计划，差异有统计学意义（F=295.138，P < 0.05）。对于小肠、直肠和膀胱的参数最大剂量，双弧VMAT与5F-IMRT计划相当，单弧VMAT计划最差，差异有统计学意义（F=16.069、7.521、13.966，均P < 0.05）。对于膀胱的参数V₂₀、V₃₀和V₄₀（V表示受照剂量体积百分比），5F-IMRT优于单弧VMAT和双弧VMAT，差异有统计学意义（F=5.142、20.095、7.387，均P < 0.05）。对于左股骨头参数V₂₀和V₃₀，单弧和双弧VMAT优于5F-IMRT，差异有统计学意义（F=3.717、16.040，均P < 0.05）。对于右股骨头参数V₃₀和V₄₀，单弧和双弧VMAT优于5F-IMRT，差异有统计学意义（F=10.873、7.791，均P < 0.05）。结论宫颈癌术后放疗，双弧VMAT计划在靶区剂量学参数上与5F-IMRT计划相当，单弧VMAT计划较差。在危及器官保护方面，3种计划各有优势，但VMAT计划的加速器跳数明显减少，可以提高治疗效率，值得进一步研究。     

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。     

左侧乳腺癌患者根治术后常规调强计划与电子束适形联合调强计划的剂量比较

目的比较左侧乳腺癌患者根治术后常规调强放射治疗计划(intensity modulated radiotherapy, IMRT)与电子束适形放疗(electron beam conformal radiotherapy, EBCRT)联合调强放疗计划的剂量学差异。方法选择2018年6月至2021年10月于宁波市第一医院放化疗中心收治的20例左侧乳腺癌根治术后患者资料, 计划靶区(plan target volume, PTV)包括锁骨上下淋巴结引流区域计划靶区(PTVsc)和患侧胸壁计划靶区(PTVcw), 处方剂量均为50 Gy/25次。所有患者均采用美国Varian Eclipse治疗计划系统(treatment planning system, TPS)设计两种放疗计划, 然后对比两种放疗计划的剂量学参数差异。结果所有20例患者的IMRT计划全部满足临床要求, 与此同时EBCRT联合IMRT计划中有2例患者因患侧肺剂量参数超出本单位的剂量限定标准而不被临床接受, 两例失败计划的胸壁最大深度分别为3.7和4.4 cm, 使用的电子束能量分别为12和15 MeV。其余18例患者的胸...     

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.     

非均整器模式在左侧乳腺癌改良根治术后患者深吸气屏气容积旋转调强放疗中的剂量学优势

目的 比较非均整器（FFF）模式和均整器（FF）模式在左侧乳腺癌改良根治术后深吸气屏气（DIBH）动态容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）中的剂量学差异。 方法 回顾性分析2020年12月至2021年5月在西安交通大学第一附属医院行DIBH放疗的16例左侧乳腺癌改良根治术后女性患者的临床资料,年龄37~61（43.5±5.7）岁。对同一患者分别设计FFF和FF模式的VMAT计划,给予计划靶区（PTV）相同的处方剂量50 Gy/25次,在达到相同的剂量归一条件下,比较靶区剂量学、危及器官受量及机器执行效率的差异。组间数据比较采用配对t检验。 结果 2种模式下靶区PTV的D_2%、D_50%、D_98%（D_x%表示x%靶体积的受照剂量）、适形指数、平均指数及梯度指数差异均无统计学意义（t=?1.519~1.644,均P>0.05）;FFF模式的心脏V_{5 Gy}、V_{30 Gy}（V_{x Gy}表示≥x Gy体积占总体积的百分比）及平均剂量（D_mean）,患侧肺V_{5 Gy}、V_{10 Gy}及D_mean,全肺V_{5 Gy}、V_{10 Gy}、V_{20 Gy}及D_mean,患者受照剂量的V_{5 Gy}均优于FF模式,组间比较差异均有统计学意义（t=?4.741~?2.156,均P<0.05）;FFF模式机器跳数是FF模式的1.32倍[（1073.41±143.79）MU对（815.70±87.69） MU],但执行时间却减少为FF模式的88.9%[（128.00±11.64） s对（144.75±11.45） s],且差异均有统计学意义（t=8.665、?4.373,均P<0.05）。 结论 2种模式下靶区剂量相似,FFF模式危及器官受照剂量更低,并且可显著缩短DIBH治疗时间。     

半野分段弧照射技术对乳腺癌放疗危及器官的保护作用

目的:利用半野的剂量分布特性和容积调强(VMAT)技术的特点,探索一种可以更好保护肺和心脏的新技术。方法:采用三维水箱测量对称野及半野的射野边缘剂量分布,并比较分析各自特征。回顾性选取50例左侧乳腺癌术后放疗患者,保乳术和根治术各25例,处方剂量50 Gy/25次,基于RayStation计划系统,分别采用对称野连续弧...     

乳腺癌术后胸壁大体积复发二野和六野调强放疗剂量学比较

目的 比较乳腺癌术后胸壁大体积复发2野和6野调强放疗的计划差异.方法 对8例乳腺切除术后胸壁大体积复发病例,Pinnacle计划系统上分别对PTV进行2野调强和6野调强放疗计划设计,PTV处方剂量为50 Gy/25次(GTV后续计划补量至66～70 Gy),比较2种计划95％处方剂量PTV适形指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)及心脏、同侧肺剂量.结果 6野IMRT计划的CI和HI均优于2野IMRT计划,6野和2野的CI分别为(0.66±0.08)和(0.53±0.10)(t=7.99,P＜0.05),HI分别为(1.36±0.08)和(2.19±0.78)(t=9.04,P＜0.05).2个计划中肺V5、V10、V20、V35和心脏Dmax、V35、Dmean值比较差异无统计学意义.结论 乳腺癌切除术后胸壁大体积复发患者行放疗,6野静态逆向调强放疗计划靶区覆盖优于2野,而心肺受量方面无明显差异.     

基于海马保护的2种儿童中枢神经系统生殖细胞肿瘤放疗技术的剂量学研究

目的 比较容积旋转调强放射治疗（VMAT）和调强适形放射治疗（IMRT）2种技术在儿童中枢神经系统（CNS）生殖细胞肿瘤（GCT）放疗中的海马保护和剂量学差异。 方法 回顾性分析2020年6月至2021年6月在解放军联勤保障部队第九〇〇医院接受全CNS放疗的12例GCT患儿的影像学资料,其中男性患儿4例、女性患儿8例,年龄7~14岁,中位年龄11岁。对所有患儿进行靶区及周围危及器官的勾画,分别设计VMAT计划和IMRT计划,处方剂量30 Gy,每次3 Gy,共照射10次。通过剂量体积直方图获取各剂量学参数并进行配对t检验,比较靶区及周围危及器官的剂量学差异,通过比较机器跳数和治疗时长评估计划实施效率。 结果 VMAT和IMRT 2种技术均能得到较好的靶区剂量学分布。VMAT技术的靶区均匀性略优于IMRT技术,均匀性指数分别为0.11±0.02和0.14±0.01,且差异有统计学意义（t=?5.392,P<0.001）。VMAT和IMRT2种技术的左海马最大照射剂量分别为（15.99±0.70） Gy和（21.21±1.07） Gy、右海马最大照射剂量分别为（16.13±0.58） Gy和（21.35±0.69） Gy,且差异均有统计学意义（t=?17.622、?21.628,均P<0.001）,VMAT技术在海马保护上达到了剂量限制要求。VMAT技术在周围危及器官保护方面较IMRT技术优势明显,除双肺外,在眼晶状体、甲状腺、肾脏保护方面VMAT技术全面优于IMRT技术,且差异均有统计学意义（t=?8.198~?2.231,均P<0.05）。VMAT技术在治疗效率方面同样优于IMRT技术,VMAT的机器跳数为1 749±95、治疗时长为（354±31） s,均仅为IMRT技术的40%左右,且差异均有统计学意义（t=?20.883、?22.790,均P<0.001）。 结论 在儿童CNS GCT放疗中,VMAT技术能够在保护海马的情况下实现更好的靶区均匀性,同时在周围危及器官保护和治疗效率上具有明显优势。     

宫颈癌术后调强放疗中骨髓抑制与骨髓照射剂量体积的关系

目的 观察宫颈癌患者术后三维适形调强放疗（IMRT）过程中骨髓抑制程度与骨髓照射剂量及体积的关系。 方法 收集 2013年1月至2016年1月中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第九〇〇医院放疗科收治的宫颈癌根治术后行全盆腔IMRT的患者109例,按随机数字表法将患者分为对骨髓进行限量的IMRT（BMS-IMRT）组[共56例（其中,行单纯放疗的有31例,行同步放化疗的有25例）,年龄（43.03±4.49）岁]和未限量的IMRT组[共53例（其中,行单纯放疗的有21例,行同步放化疗的有32例）,年龄（42.72±5.23）岁],2组均在放疗计划系统勾画照射范围内的骨髓,包括腰骶椎、髂骨、坐骨、耻骨及近端的股骨。观察2组患者治疗计划靶区剂量分布情况、骨髓照射体积与剂量及放疗过程中骨髓照射体积、剂量与骨髓抑制程度的关系。2组间的计划靶体积剂量学、危及器官剂量体积参数的比较采用t检验;骨髓抑制程度、白细胞计数（WBC）和中性粒细胞减少程度及其他不良反应情况比较采用χ2检验。 结果 宫颈癌患者术后IMRT过程中骨髓抑制程度与骨髓照射体积、照射剂量相关,BMS-IMRT组与IMRT组计划靶体积剂量学比较,差异无统计学意义（t=?4.220~2.923,均P>0.05）,在2组危及器官剂量体积参数对比中,骨髓的V₂₀（≥20 Gy体积占总体积的百分比）、V₄₀（≥40 Gy体积占总体积的百分比）,直肠V₄₅（≥45 Gy体积占总体积的百分比）、D_2%（近似最大剂量）及小肠D_2%比较,差异均有统计学意义（t=?12.696~2.917,均P< 0.05）。2组间WBC及中性粒细胞的减少程度比较,差异有统计学意义（χ2=6.728、6.813,P=0.035、0.033）,血小板、RBC及血红蛋白的减少程度比较,差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.385、0.006、1.419,P=0.825、0.938、0.492）。对于行单纯放疗的患者,2组的WBC减少程度比较,差异有统计学意义（χ2=9.709,P=0.008）,而对于行同步放化疗的患者,2组的WBC减少程度比较,差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.073,P=0.786）。中性粒细胞减少的程度无论是在行单纯放疗还是行同步放化疗的患者中,2组之间的差异均无统计学意义（χ2=4.741、1.523,P=0.093、0.217）,2组患者其他不良反应情况比较,差异均无统计学意义（χ2=0.369、1.845、1.158、0.610,P=0.544、0.398、0.560、0.558）。 结论 宫颈癌患者术后在行全盆腔IMRT的过程中,WBC和中性粒细胞减少程度与骨髓照射剂量及体积呈正相关,在行IMRT时应对骨髓进行保护及限量。     

乳腺癌根治术后双弧VMAT与IMRT计划的剂量学比较

目的 比较乳腺癌根治术后双弧的容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)与5野的静态调强放射治疗(IMRT)2种计划之间的剂量学差异,评估VMAT技术在乳腺癌根治术后的剂量学特点与应用能力.方法 选取28例乳腺癌根治术后患者(左侧10例,右侧18例),分别制定双90度弧段的VMAT与5野的IMRT 2种计划,主要的计划评估参数为靶区的肿瘤控制概率(TCP)、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)评估包括患侧肺的正常组织并发症概率(NTCP)、D_mean、V₅、V₂₀、V₃₀,心脏的NTCP值、D_mean、V₂₅,健侧乳腺的D_mean、机器跳数(MU)以及治疗时间.结果 VMAT计划与IMRT计划的TCP值分别为(96±2)%、(90±2)%(t=-6.28,P<0.01);HI值分别为0.15±0.04,0.22±0.02(t=13.29,P<0.05);肿瘤位于左侧时,心脏NTCP值在VMAT计划与IMRT计划中分别为(1.0±0.12)%,(1.7±0.13)%(t=2.14,P<0.05);肿瘤位于右侧时,2种计划心脏的NTCP差异无统计学意义,平均剂量分别为(3.27±0.26)、(6.0±0.47)Gy(t=9.21, P<0.01);VMAT计划在MU少于IMRT计划(t=9.58,P<0.01),治疗时间短于IMRT计划(t=8.40,P<0.05).结论 乳腺癌根治术后,VMAT计划具有更强的临床应用能力,且表现出更优的剂量学特点.     

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。     

Treatment and Dosimetric Advantages Between VMAT, IMRT, and Helical TomoTherapy in Prostate Cancer

We investigated the possible treatment and dosimetric advantage of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) over step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (step-and-hhoot IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). Twelve prostate cancer patients undergoing VMAT to the prostate were included. Three treatment plans (VMAT, step-and-shoot IMRT, HT) were generated for each patient. The doses to clinical target volume and 95% of planning target volume were both ≥78 Gy. Target coverage, conformity index, dose to rectum/bladder, monitor units (MU), treatment time, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of targets, and rectum/bladder were compared between techniques. HT provided superior conformity and significantly less rectal volume exposed to 65 Gy and 40 Gy, as well as EUD/NTCP of rectum than step-and-shoot IMRT, whereas VMAT had a slight dosimetric advantage over step-and-shoot IMRT. Notably, significantly lower MUs were needed for VMAT (309.7 ± 35.4) and step-and-shoot IMRT (336.1 ± 16.8) than for HT (3368 ± 638.7) (p < 0.001). The treatment time (minutes) was significantly shorter for VMAT (2.6 ± 0.5) than step-and-shoot IMRT (3.8 ± 0.3) and HT (3.8 ± 0.6) (p < 0.001). Dose verification of VMAT using point dose and film dosimetry met the accepted criteria. VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT have comparable dosimetry, but treatment efficiency is significantly higher for VMAT than for step-and-shoot IMRT and HT.     

Postmastectomy radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer patients: Comparison of advanced techniques

Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has been shown to improve the overall survival for invasive breast cancer patients, and many advanced radiotherapy technologies were adopted for PMRT. The purpose of our study is to compare various advanced PMRT techniques including fixed-beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), and tomotherapy (TOMO). Results of standard VMAT and mixed beam therapy that were published by our group previously were also included in the plan comparisons. Treatment plans were produced for nine PMRT patients previously treated in our clinic. The plans were evaluated based on planning target volume (PTV) coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI), conformity index (CI), dose to organs at risk (OARs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of pneumonitis, lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of second cancers, and risk of coronary events (RCE). All techniques produced clinically acceptable PMRT plans. Overall, fixed-beam IMRT delivered the lowest mean dose to contralateral breast (1.56 ± 0.4 Gy) and exhibited lowest LAR (0.6 ± 0.2%) of secondary contralateral breast cancer; NC-VMAT delivered the lowest mean dose to lungs (7.5 ± 0.8 Gy), exhibited lowest LAR (5.4 ± 2.8%) of secondary lung cancer and lowest NTCP (2.1 ± 0.4%) of pneumonitis; mixed beam therapy delivered the lowest mean dose to heart (7.1 ± 1.3 Gy) and exhibited lowest RCE (8.6 ± 7.1%); TOMO plans provided the most optimal target coverage while delivering higher dose to OARs than other techniques. Both NC-VMAT and MA-VMAT exhibited lower values of all OARs evaluation metrics compare to standard VMAT. Fixed-beam IMRT, NC-VMAT, and mixed beam therapy could be the optimal radiation technique for certain breast cancer patients after mastectomy.     

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。     

A study of the dosimetric characteristics between different fixed-field IMRT and VMAT in early-stage primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma

This analysis was designed to compare dosimetric parameters among different fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) solutions and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to identify which can achieve the lowest risk of organs at risk (OARs) and treatment delivery efficiently. A total of 16 patients (8 male and 8 female) with early-stage primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) were enrolled with planned gross tumor volume (PGTV) 45?Gy and planning target volume (PTV) 40?Gy. Four different plans were generated: 5-, 7, 9-field IMRT, and VMAT. The dose distributions for PGTV and PTV OARs (lungs, left ventricle, heart, thyroid gland, and breasts) were compared. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. Mean conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for PGTV in 5F-, 7F-, 9F-IMRT, and VMAT were 1.01 and 1.10, 1.01 and 1.10, 1.01 and 1.10, and 1.01 and 1.11 (p?=?0.963 and 0.843), whereas these 2 indices for PTV were 1.04 and 1.22, 1.03 and 1.19, 1.03 and 1.17, and 1.08 and 1.14 (p?=?0.964 and 0.969), respectively. D_mean (Gy), V4 (%), D50 (Gy), and D80 (Gy) to the left and right breasts increased by 0.7?Gy and 0.1?Gy, 6.8% and 7.7%, 0.9?Gy and 1.7?Gy, and 1.0?Gy and 1.5?Gy in VMAT, respectively. The 9-beam IMRT plan had the highest MUs (25,762.4 MUs) and the longest treatment delivery time (10.7 minutes); whereas, the VMAT had the lowest MUs (13,345.0) and the shortest treatment delivery time (5.9 minutes). Seven- and 9-field IMRT and VMAT provide improved tumor coverage compared with 5F-IMRT, whereas VMAT shows higher treatment delivery efficiency than IMRT technique. Seven- and 9-field IMRT slightly reduce the low dose radiation exposure of breasts compared with VMAT technique. The 7- and 9-field IMRT and VMAT techniques both can be safely and efficiently delivered to patients with PMBCL.     

Locoregional irradiation including internal mammary nodal region for left-sided breast cancer after breast conserving surgery: Dosimetric evaluation of 4 techniques

The present study aimed to compare 4 techniques in the planning of locoregional irradiation including internal mammary nodal region for left-sided breast cancer. Ten patients with left-sided breast cancer undergoing breast conservation surgery were enrolled. For each patient, 4 treatment plans were performed: a helical tomotherapy (HT) plan, a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan, a static intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan, and a hybrid IMRT plan, designed to encompass the whole breast, internal mammary, and supraclavicular nodal regions. The prescribed dose of radiation was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The dosimetric parameters of the target and organs at risk, as well as the dose delivery time, were evaluated and compared using an independent-samples t-test. The HT and VMAT plans had the best conformity and homogeneity. For the HT, VMAT, IMRT, and hybrid IMRT plans, the mean conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were 0.83, 0.82, 0.8, and 0.77 (p < 0.001); and 1.07, 1.11, 1.14, and 1.14 (p < 0.001), respectively. The corresponding V₅₅ values were 0.3%, 11.4%, 27.02%, and 23.29% (p < 0.001). The D_mean and V₂₀ of the left lung obtained using the HT plan were significantly lower than those of VMAT, IMRT, and hybrid IMRT plans (p = 0.002, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in D max of LAD descending coronary artery, or the D_mean of the heart among the 4 types of plans. The HT and VMAT plans had a lower dose to other organ at risk (OARs) compared with the IMRT and hybrid IMRT plans. The mean delivery times were 1042 ± 33 seconds, 136 ± 12 seconds, 450 ± 65 seconds, and 451 ± 70 seconds for the HT, VMAT, IMRT, and hybrid IMRT plans, respectively (p < 0.001). For whole breast plus supraclavicular and internal mammary nodal irradiation in left-sided breast cancer, the VMAT technique is recommended considering both the dose distribution and the delivery time. Under circumstances in which dose distribution is a priority, the HT technique is a valid option.     

Conformal breast irradiation with the arm of the affected side parallel to the body

Purpose

To propose a simple, forward-planned three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique for breast cancer patients with frozen shoulder.

Materials and methods

A technique is described that avoids lateral beams transmitting through the arm of the affected side. One medial, tangentially applied beam deposits most of the dose. Further beams with little weight are used to attain dose homogeneity. In order to quantify dose distribution and homogeneity in the planning target volume (PTV), as well as the scattered dose in organs at risk (OAR), the parameters D95, D5, D1, mean and median dose were determined for the individual volumes. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created in order to compare these with the proposed technique.

Results

The described technique achieved homogenous dose deposition within the PTV. A regimen comprising 25 fractions of 2 Gy prescribed to the PTV resulted in the following dose parameters: PTV(D95): 44.3 Gy, PTV(D5): 52.7 Gy, PTV(D1): 54.8 Gy, PTV(mean): 49.3 Gy and PTV(median): 49.9 Gy. Mean lung dose was 7.0 Gy. The ipsilateral lung received a mean dose of 9.9 Gy. This plan was accepted for treatment. The IMRT and VMAT plans achieved a similar dose distribution in the PTV. These techniques also reduced dose deposition in the OAR.

Conclusion

The proposed 3D-CRT technique allows treatment of breast cancer patients who are not able to raise their arms above their head. Homogenous dose distribution in the PTV was achieved while avoiding lateral beams that transmit through the arm of the affected side. Mean lung dose was comparable to that of the conventional technique using opposed tangential beams. IMRT and VMAT also provide good target dose homogeneity with good sparing of OAR. However, these techniques are more demanding in terms of planning and quality assurance.     

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been previously evaluated for several tumor sites and has been shown to provide significant dosimetric and delivery benefits when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). To date, there have been no published full reports on the benefits of VMAT use in pancreatic patients compared with IMRT. Ten patients with pancreatic malignancies treated with either IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively identified. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each of the 10 patients using the same defined tumor volumes, organs at risk (OAR) volumes, dose, fractionation, and optimization constraints. The planning tumor volume (PTV) maximum dose (55.8 Gy vs. 54.4 Gy), PTV mean dose (53.9 Gy vs. 52.1 Gy), and conformality index (1.11 vs. 0.99) were statistically similar between the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The VMAT plans had a statistically significant reduction in monitor units compared with the IMRT plans (1109 vs. 498, p < 0.001). In addition, the doses to the liver, small bowel, and spinal cord were comparable between the IMRT and VMAT plans. However, the VMAT plans demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the mean left kidney V₂₅ (9.4 Gy vs. 2.3 Gy, p = 0.018), mean right kidney V₁₅ (53.4 Gy vs. 45.9 Gy, p = 0.035), V₂₀ (32.2 Gy vs. 25.5 Gy, p = 0.016), and V₂₅ (21.7 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy, p = 0.001). VMAT was investigated in patients with pancreatic malignancies and compared with the current standard of IMRT. VMAT was found to have similar or improved dosimetric parameters for all endpoints considered. Specifically, VMAT provided reduced monitor units and improved bilateral kidney normal tissue dose. The clinical relevance of these benefits in the context of pancreatic cancer patients, however, is currently unclear and requires further investigation.