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。     

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。     

动态多叶光栅剂量学间隙对调强放疗的影响

目的 研究多叶光栅剂量学间隙（DLG）对计算剂量和实际剂量的影响。方法 在Eclipse计划系统中对典型全盆腔病例分别做动态调强计划（IMRT）和容积旋转调强（VMAT）计划。计算DLG为0与0.3 cm两种极端情况下剂量学指标的差异,分析DLG变化对平均叶片间隙的影响。固定多叶光栅位置,模拟实际治疗通量,通过改变DLG的大小,分析PTV平均剂量的变化趋势。结果 DLG在0与0.3 cm下计划靶区（PTV）接受50 Gy剂量时所对应的体积（V₅₀）、直肠V₄₀、膀胱V₄₀、小肠V₃₅、左右股骨头所接受的最大剂量（D_max）的差异分别为1.49%、0.72%、0.82%、0.68%,0.02和0.14 Gy。多叶光栅的平均叶片间隙与剂量学间隙明显相关（R²=0.996,P<0.05）,且随剂量学间隙的增大而变小。实际治疗中,对典型全盆腔病例,剂量学间隙每增大0.1 cm,IMRT的PTV平均剂量降低3.95%,VMAT降低1.5%。结论 动态多叶光栅剂量学间隙会影响多叶光栅的实际位置,导致实际治疗与治疗计划的剂量学差异,剂量学间隙越大,实际剂量越低。     

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.     

直肠癌静态调强与容积旋转调强放疗计划的剂量学对比研究

目的 对比研究直肠癌术后患者应用静态调强放疗(IMRT)和容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)的计划质量、治疗效率和剂量精度,为临床治疗技术的选择提供参考依据.方法 选择10例直肠癌术后调强放疗患者,行CT模拟定位并勾画靶区及危及器官,在同一计划系统上给予相同处方剂量和目标优化条件,分别设计5野IMRT计划和双弧VMAT计划.比较两种计划的靶区(PTV/CTV)受量、适形指数(CI)、均匀指数(HI)、危及器官(OAR)的受量、机器跳数、治疗计划执行时间,以及剂量验证通过率.结果 两种治疗计划均能满足临床剂量要求,VMAT计划的靶区剂量覆盖率略低于IMRT计划.VMAT和IMRT计划的HI分别为0.095和0.101,差异无统计学意义(t=2.61, P>0.05);而IMRT计划的CI(0.737)优于VMAT计划(0.614)(t=4.94, P<0.05),考虑为VMAT计划优化过程中对周围正常组织低剂量区受量限制过于严格,从而造成计划的适形度受到影响.VMAT计划中正常组织如膀胱、股骨头的低剂量区较之IMRT计划均有不同程度增加.VMAT和IMRT计划的平均机器跳数(MUs)分别为599和515(t=4.72, P<0.05),相应的治疗时间分别为201和304 s(t=5.83, P<0.05).使用Delta⁴对两种计划进行验证,γ通过率(选用3%/3 mm标准)分别为VMAT 93.13%和IMRT 96.00%(t=3.75, P<0.05).结论 直肠癌VMAT和IMRT 计划均可满足临床要求,VMAT计划可以显著降低治疗时间,提高治疗效率,但其疗效还需进一步临床评估.     

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.     

不同调强方式在胸中上段食管癌放疗中的剂量学研究

目的 对胸中上段食管癌患者进行静态调强（IMRT）和容积旋转调强（VMAT）两种放疗方式的剂量学对比研究。方法 对20例IMRT治疗的食管癌患者行VMAT（单弧和双弧）计划的重新设计。在单弧的VMAT计划中,对其中5例患者行不同子野间隔（4°、3°、2°）以及不同计划系统（Monaco和MasterPlan）的计划设计。比较靶区和危及器官（OAR）的剂量学差异及治疗参数。结果 双弧VMAT计划各项靶区剂量学参数明显好于IMRT计划和单弧VMAT计划（P<0.05）,靶区均匀性（HI）（P<0.05）和适形度（CI）（P<0.05）最好。危及器官参数VMAT可在一定程度上降低OAR的受照剂量,但是IMRT对肺组织和正常组织（E-P）的低剂量保护要优于VMAT（P<0.05）;不同子野间隔的VMAT计划中,2°相对于3°和4°其OAR的受照剂量是减小的（P<0.05）,除了心脏的D_mean;不同计划系统设计的VMAT计划,以Monaco对OAR的保护为最优（P<0.05）;VMAT的机器跳数少于IMRT,而且有效节省了治疗时间。 结论 VMAT方式相对于IMRT能够实现更好的靶区覆盖、均匀性和适形度,同时能降低脊髓、肺组织、心脏和E-P的受照剂量;对于VMAT来说,双弧技术、小子野角度间隔能够进一步地改善靶区和OAR的受照剂量;此外,在物理参数和优化参数一致的前提下,Monaco可以更好地保护OAR。     

切向双弧容积弧形调强技术对保乳术后包括内乳淋巴结区照射的心脏剂量学评价

目的 通过对左侧乳腺癌保乳术后患者内乳淋巴结局部放疗,探讨一种新的切向50°双弧容积弧形调强放射治疗（tangential volumetric modulated arc therapy,T-VMAT）技术的剂量学特点,评价T-VMAT对心脏的潜在保护作用。方法 15例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后患者,每例患者分别设计常规加楔形板切线野（W-TF）、6野调强适形放射治疗（6F-IMRT）和T-VMAT计划,靶区处方剂量50 Gy/25次,计算并比较靶区和危及器官（OAR）的剂量体积参数和适形指标。结果 与W-TF相比,T-VMAT技术不仅可降低心脏和冠状动脉前降支（LAD）最大剂量D_max、平均剂量D_mean和≥ 10 Gy剂量区体积（P<0.05）,而且有降低5 Gy剂量区体积V_{5 Gy}趋势,但差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;与6F-IMRT相比,T-VMAT技术可明显降低心脏的D_mean、V_{5 Gy}、V_{10 Gy}和V_{20 Gy},以及LAD的D_mean、V_{5 Gy}和V_{10 Gy}（P<0.05）。与W-TF相比,T-VMAT计划中同侧肺V_{20 Gy}和健侧乳腺V_{5 Gy}均未增加,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,且靶区剂量覆盖和适形度均明显优于W-TF,热点体积V₁₁₀明显低于W-TF（P<0.05）。结论 在不增加同侧肺和健侧乳腺受照体积的同时,T-VMAT不仅可以降低心脏和LAD高剂量区受照体积,而且有降低心脏和LAD低剂量区受照体积的趋势。     

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。     

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。     

基于快速梯度下降的容积旋转调强优化算法

目的 针对目前容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）计划中的优化时间长和解的可重复性差等问题,探讨一种基于快速梯度下降的优化算法。方法 利用梯度下降算法求解由少数固定野组成的常规调强放疗（IMRT）计划,通过叶片序列生成算法得到最优射野孔径形状和权重。在保持已有优化射野的前提下,渐进地增加并优化新的射野直到达到所需射野数。通过实际病例对该方法的性能进行评估。结果 针对头颈部肿瘤病例,VMAT计划的优化时间约为5 min,而目前使用的商业VMAT优化算法一般需要10~20 min。由于梯度下降算法为确定性算法,得到的优化解可重复。VMAT计划的靶区适形度和均匀度皆优于IMRT计划。对大部分危及器官的保护而言,VMAT计划略好于IMRT计划。结论 和已有VMAT优化算法相比,新算法不仅优化时间大幅缩短,而且保证了解的可重复性。     

基于容积调强弧形技术模型的全自动逆向优化方案的设计及应用

目的 对容积调强弧形技术(VMAT)优化模型进行改良,在仿真环境下结合全自动逆向优化技术,制定综合IMRT与VMAT优点的放疗计划优化新策略,并对优化结果进行剂量学评估验证。方法 在仿真环境下,模拟临床相对复杂的鼻咽癌病例,分别制作9野IMRT计划和单弧VMAT计划。使用全自动逆向优化技术,自主研发基于VMAT模型的优化程序AOP。根据不同阈值将初始VMAT优化模型产生的子野进行均匀合并,阈值范围为{10,20,30,40,50}。AOP软件根据约束条件给出不同阈值下优化难易值w,并选取最优方案生成AOP计划。将AOP计划与常规IMRT/VMAT计划做剂量学比较,评估优化结果,验证计划质量。结果 与常规IMRT及VMAT优化方案相比,AOP软件给出的最优方案(m=2时)靶区适形度较好,同时更好地保护视交叉、晶状体、视神经等正常组织,且在腮腺及口咽的平均剂量上较IMRT和VMAT计划要低。结论 基于VMAT模型的全自动逆向优化技术产生的方案与临床现有技术具有可比性,甚至在保护某些正常组织上更有优势,同时耗费子野总数更少。     

直肠癌术后三种不同放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的 探讨直肠癌术后螺旋断层放疗(HT)、静态调强放疗(IMRT)及三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)的剂量学特点,为临床选择直肠癌术后放疗方法提供依据.方法 回顾性选取10例Ⅱ、Ⅲ期中低位直肠癌切除术(Dixon手术)后患者,在其CT定位图像上勾画靶区及危及器官,并进行HT、IMRT及3D-CRT计划设计.要求至少95％的PTV达到处方剂量为50 Gy.结果 3种治疗计划均能满足处方剂量要求;除3D-CRT计划外,HT计划与IMRT计划均能较好地满足各危及器官剂量限制要求.HT、IMRT、3D-CRT计划的适形度指数CI分别为0.86、0.82和0.62(F=206.81,P＜0.001),剂量均匀性指数(HI)分别为0.001、0.157和0.205(x2 =15.8,P＜0.001).3D-CRT计划骨盆V50、膀胱V40、小肠V50、股骨头D5明显高于IMRT与HT计划(P＜0.05),而后两者差别无统计学意义.HT计划小肠V15大于IMRT计划与3D-CRT计划(71.1％ vs.63.3％、67.7％),差异无统计学意义.结论 HT、IM RT及3D-CRT3种治疗计划均可满足直肠癌靶区处方剂量要求.HT计划适形度和均匀性最好,其次为IMRT计划,3D-CRT计划最差.HT计划满足所有危及器官的剂量限制,对正常组织的保护略优于IMRT计划.3D-CRT计划简便、实用性强,但对危及器官的保护较差.     

Feasibility study of volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate for endometrial cancer

To investigate the feasibility, efficiency, and delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate (VMAT-CDR) for whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) of endometrial cancer. The nine-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), VMAT with variable dose-rate (VMAT-VDR), and VMAT-CDR plans were created for 9 patients with endometrial cancer undergoing WPRT. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and normal tissue (NT) were compared. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. For each VMAT-CDR plan, a dry run was performed to assess the dosimetric accuracy with MatriXX from IBA. Compared with IMRT, the VMAT-CDR plans delivered a slightly greater V₂₀ of the bowel, bladder, pelvis bone, and NT, but significantly decreased the dose to the high-dose region of the rectum and pelvis bone. The MUs decreased from 1105 with IMRT to 628 with VMAT-CDR. The delivery time also decreased from 9.5 to 3.2 minutes. The average gamma pass rate was 95.6% at the 3%/3 mm criteria with MatriXX pretreatment verification for 9 patients. VMAT-CDR can achieve comparable plan quality with significant shorter delivery time and smaller number of MUs compared with IMRT for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing WPRT. It can be accurately delivered and be an alternative to IMRT on the linear accelerator without VDR capability.     

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.     

螺旋断层放疗在同时性双侧乳腺癌中的应用研究

目的 研究螺旋断层放疗(helical tomotherapy,HT)与容积旋转调强放疗(volumetric modulated arc therapy,VMAT)在同时性双侧乳腺癌术后放疗中的剂量学、治疗出束时间差异,探讨HT技术的临床应用可行性。方法 回顾性分析并选取2017年2月至2022年5月于广西医科大学第四附属医院行改良根治术后放疗的9例同时性双侧乳腺癌患者为研究对象,对每例患者分别使用Precision计划系统制定HT计划和RayStation计划系统制定VMAT计划。所得所有计划按照计划类型分为HT组和VMAT组。采用配对样本t检验比较两种放疗技术的靶区和危及器官(organ at risk,OAR)的剂量学参数及治疗出束时间。结果 两组计划均能满足临床治疗要求。HT组的靶区覆盖度(D_95%和V_100%)、适形指数CI、平均剂量D_mean和中位剂量D_50%均优于VMAT组,差异均有统计学意义(t=-3.21、-3.39、-5.03、3.76、4.97,P < 0.05);两组计划的靶区最大剂量D_2%、最小剂量D_98%、高剂量体积V_107%和V_110%、均匀性指数HI的差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。OAR方面,HT组的双肺V₂₀、D_mean均明显低于VMAT组,但双肺V₅明显高于VMAT组,差异均有统计学意义(t=-3.01、3.83、-2.81,P < 0.05);同时HT组明显降低了心脏的V₂₀、V₃₀、V₄₀、D_mean以及肝脏的V₂₀、D_mean,差异均有统计学意义(t=3.76、-2.83、-2.74、5.93、4.57、4.48,P < 0.05);其他OAR脊髓、甲状腺、肱骨头的受照剂量差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。HT组的治疗出束时间显著高于VMAT组(t=11.32,P < 0.05)。结论 与VMAT相比,HT具备更大的剂量学优势,能提供更优的靶区覆盖度、适形度和平均剂量,且可明显降低OAR双肺、心脏和肝脏的整体受照剂量,但双肺的低剂量区V₅、治疗时间多于VMAT,不过仍满足临床治疗需求,故可考虑将HT技术应用于同时性双侧乳腺癌的改良根治术后放疗。