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.     

快速旋转调强与固定射野动态调强在直肠癌术前放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较快速旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定射野动态调强(dIMRT)两种放射治疗技术在直肠癌术前放疗中的剂量学差异.方法 采用两种治疗技术对10例Ⅱ、Ⅲ期直肠癌术前患者设计同步加量治疗计划.处方剂量为GTV 50.6 Gy,分22次;PTV41.8 Gy,分22次,危及器官限量参考临床常规要求.在95%体积的PTV达到处方剂量前提下,比较两种计划的剂量体积直方(DVH)图、靶区和危及器官剂量、靶区剂量适形度、剂量分布均匀性、机器跳数以及治疗时间.结果 RapidArc计划中,GTV和PTV的靶区剂量适形度较高(t=7.643、8.226,P＜0.05);而靶区剂量均匀性略低于dIMRT(t=-10.065、-4.235,P＜0.05).RapidArc计划中大、小肠的平均受量显著低于dIMRT计划(t=2.781,P＜0.05).膀胱平均受照剂量略低于dIMRT,股骨头的平均受量略高于dIMRT,但差异无统计学意义.RapidArc计划机器跳数减少48.5%,平均治疗时间节省79.5%.结论 RapidArc与dIMRT计划在直肠癌术前放射治疗的剂量学上无明显差异.RapidArc每次治疗时间明显缩短,减少了治疗期间患者非主观运动引起的误差,总的机器跳数降低,减少了正常组织照射.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between RapidArc and fixed gantry angle dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) in developing the pre-operative radiotherapy for rectal cancer patients.Methods Two techniques,RapidArc and dIMRT,were used respectively to develop the synchronous intensity modulated plans for 10 stage Ⅱ and Ⅲ rectal cancer patients at the dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) of 50.6 Gy divided into 22 fractions and planning target volume (PTV) of 41.8 Gy divided into 22 fractions.Both plans satisfied the condition of 95% of PTV covered by 41.8 Gy.The dose-volume histogram data,isodose distribution,monitor units,and treatment time were compared.Results The two kinds of dose volume histogram (DVH) developed by these two techniques were almost the same.The conformal indexes of GTV and PTV by RapidArc were better than those by dIMRT (t =7.643,8.226 ,P < 0.05),while the homogeneity of target volume by dIMRT was better (t =-10.065,-4.235 ,P <0.05).The dose of rectum and small bowel planned by RapidArc was significantly lower than that by dIMRT (t =2.781 ,P <0.05).There were no significant differences in the mean doses of bladder and femoral head between these two techniques.The mean monitor units of RapidArc was 475.5,fewer by 48.5% in comparison with that by the dIMRT (924.6).The treatment mean time by RapidArc was 1.2min,shorter by 79.5% in comparison with that by dIMRT (5.58 min).Conclusions There is no significant dosimetric difference between the two plans of RapidArc and dIMRT.Compared with dIMRT,RapidArc achieves equal target coverage and organs at risk(OAR) sparing while using fewer monitor units and less time during radiotherapy for patient with rectal cancer.     

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.     

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

Objective To compare the dose distribution of the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy(3D-CRT)and 5-field or 7-field intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT), and to explore the value of IMRT in preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer.Methods Ten rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative combination radiotherapy and chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. 3D-CRT plan and the 5.field or 7-field IMRT plans were performed for each patient.The conformal index (CI),heterogeneity index(HI)of the planning target volume(PTV)and the dose of normal organs of 3D-CRT plan(3D-CRTp)and the 5-field or 7-field IMRT plans(IMRT5fp or IMRT7fp)were analyzed with the dose-volume histogram.Results The CI values of PTV were 0.91,0.87 and 0.78 in IMRT7fpIMRT5fp and 3D- CRT but with IMRT7fp>IMRT5fp>3D-CRTp(t=-5.69、-8.91,P<0.01),respectively.The HI values of PrV were 1.09,1.08 and 1.05 in IMRT5fp,IMRT7fp and 3D- CRTp but with IMRT5fp >IMRT7fp>3D- CRTp(t=3.41、-6.89,P<0.01),respectively.The ratio of dose volume were 0.08,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.79、3.52,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the small intestine V50,with 0.07,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.58、3.40,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D-CRTp on the bladder V50 and 0.01,0.01 and 0.05(t=3.00、3.17,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the fomoral head V45.The ratio of dose volume were 0.31 and 0.38(t=3.91,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on the bone marrow V50,with 0.07 and 0.10 in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on bladder V45.Conclusions IMRT plan is superior to 3 D- CRT plan in dose conformal degrees of PTV with preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer and can significantly protect the normal tissues.The 7-field IMRT plan might be the optimal plan for dose conformal degree and dose uniformity compared with 5-field IMRT.     

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

Objective To compare the dose distribution of the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy(3D-CRT)and 5-field or 7-field intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT), and to explore the value of IMRT in preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer.Methods Ten rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative combination radiotherapy and chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. 3D-CRT plan and the 5.field or 7-field IMRT plans were performed for each patient.The conformal index (CI),heterogeneity index(HI)of the planning target volume(PTV)and the dose of normal organs of 3D-CRT plan(3D-CRTp)and the 5-field or 7-field IMRT plans(IMRT5fp or IMRT7fp)were analyzed with the dose-volume histogram.Results The CI values of PTV were 0.91,0.87 and 0.78 in IMRT7fpIMRT5fp and 3D- CRT but with IMRT7fp>IMRT5fp>3D-CRTp(t=-5.69、-8.91,P<0.01),respectively.The HI values of PrV were 1.09,1.08 and 1.05 in IMRT5fp,IMRT7fp and 3D- CRTp but with IMRT5fp >IMRT7fp>3D- CRTp(t=3.41、-6.89,P<0.01),respectively.The ratio of dose volume were 0.08,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.79、3.52,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the small intestine V50,with 0.07,0.10 and 0.19(t=2.58、3.40,P<0.05)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D-CRTp on the bladder V50 and 0.01,0.01 and 0.05(t=3.00、3.17,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp,IMRT5fp and 3D- CRTp on the fomoral head V45.The ratio of dose volume were 0.31 and 0.38(t=3.91,P<0.01)in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on the bone marrow V50,with 0.07 and 0.10 in IMRT7fp and IMRT5fp on bladder V45.Conclusions IMRT plan is superior to 3 D- CRT plan in dose conformal degrees of PTV with preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer and can significantly protect the normal tissues.The 7-field IMRT plan might be the optimal plan for dose conformal degree and dose uniformity compared with 5-field IMRT.     

乳腺癌术后放疗3种治疗计划的剂量学研究

Objective To investigate the dosimetric characteristics of helical tomotherapy(HT),intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT)and three.dimensional conformal radiation therapy(3D-CRT)for the post-operative breast cancer as well as their comparison in protecting the normal tissues.Methods The CT images of 10 postoperative patients with early stage breast cancer were transferRed into HT and IMRT and 3D- CRT planning system respectively after the target region and normal tissues were drawn out with the same doctor.Each prescribed dose for three kinds of plans was 50 Gy/25 fractions.Inrradiation doses and volume at heart and double lungs as well as conformity index(CI)and homogeneity index(HI)were evaluated.Results The PTV volume of prescribed target dose of 95% and 100%in HT, IMRT and 3D-CRT groups were 99.13%and 95.87%,97.80%and 94.05%,96.37%and 87.29%.respectively.The CI and HI in HT.IMRT and 3D-CRT groups were 0.80±0.10 and 1.09 ±0.03,0.65±0.07 and 1.14±0.02,0.40±0.08 and 1.17±0.04,respectively V5,V10 and V20 of the heart were the lowest at 3D-CRT than HT and lM RT.V5 of the diseased lung was the lowest at 3D-CRT compared to HT and IMRT.V5 and V10 of the healthy lung were the lowest at 3 D-CRT compared to other groups.Conclusions Compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT.HT technique in treating breast cancer had the best conformity index and homogeneity index as well as steeper dose gradient.Irradiated doses and volume at the heart was the lowest at 3D- CRT and the highest at IMRT.Irradiated doses and volume of the heart and healthy lung as well as the diseased lung were the lowest at 3D-CRT compared to HT and IMRT groups.     

乳腺癌术后放疗3种治疗计划的剂量学研究

Objective To investigate the dosimetric characteristics of helical tomotherapy(HT),intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT)and three.dimensional conformal radiation therapy(3D-CRT)for the post-operative breast cancer as well as their comparison in protecting the normal tissues.Methods The CT images of 10 postoperative patients with early stage breast cancer were transferRed into HT and IMRT and 3D- CRT planning system respectively after the target region and normal tissues were drawn out with the same doctor.Each prescribed dose for three kinds of plans was 50 Gy/25 fractions.Inrradiation doses and volume at heart and double lungs as well as conformity index(CI)and homogeneity index(HI)were evaluated.Results The PTV volume of prescribed target dose of 95% and 100%in HT, IMRT and 3D-CRT groups were 99.13%and 95.87%,97.80%and 94.05%,96.37%and 87.29%.respectively.The CI and HI in HT.IMRT and 3D-CRT groups were 0.80±0.10 and 1.09 ±0.03,0.65±0.07 and 1.14±0.02,0.40±0.08 and 1.17±0.04,respectively V5,V10 and V20 of the heart were the lowest at 3D-CRT than HT and lM RT.V5 of the diseased lung was the lowest at 3D-CRT compared to HT and IMRT.V5 and V10 of the healthy lung were the lowest at 3 D-CRT compared to other groups.Conclusions Compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT.HT technique in treating breast cancer had the best conformity index and homogeneity index as well as steeper dose gradient.Irradiated doses and volume at the heart was the lowest at 3D- CRT and the highest at IMRT.Irradiated doses and volume of the heart and healthy lung as well as the diseased lung were the lowest at 3D-CRT compared to HT and IMRT groups.     

Intensity modulated proton therapy

Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) implies the electromagnetic spatial control of well-circumscribed “pencil beams” of protons of variable energy and intensity. Proton pencil beams take advantage of the charged-particle Bragg peak—the characteristic peak of dose at the end of range—combined with the modulation of pencil beam variables to create target-local modulations in dose that achieves the dose objectives. IMPT improves on X-ray intensity modulated beams (intensity modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy) with dose modulation along the beam axis as well as lateral, in-field, dose modulation. The clinical practice of IMPT further improves the healthy tissue vs target dose differential in comparison with X-rays and thus allows increased target dose with dose reduction elsewhere. In addition, heavy-charged-particle beams allow for the modulation of biological effects, which is of active interest in combination with dose “painting” within a target. The clinical utilization of IMPT is actively pursued but technical, physical and clinical questions remain. Technical questions pertain to control processes for manipulating pencil beams from the creation of the proton beam to delivery within the patient within the accuracy requirement. Physical questions pertain to the interplay between the proton penetration and variations between planned and actual patient anatomical representation and the intrinsic uncertainty in tissue stopping powers (the measure of energy loss per unit distance). Clinical questions remain concerning the impact and management of the technical and physical questions within the context of the daily treatment delivery, the clinical benefit of IMPT and the biological response differential compared with X-rays against which clinical benefit will be judged. It is expected that IMPT will replace other modes of proton field delivery. Proton radiotherapy, since its first practice 50 years ago, always required the highest level of accuracy and pioneered volumetric treatment planning and imaging at a level of quality now standard in X-ray therapy. IMPT requires not only the highest precision tools but also the highest level of system integration of the services required to deliver high-precision radiotherapy.The practice of proton radiotherapy covers 50 years since the first proton patient at the Berkeley Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Berkeley, CA). In that period, a few post-research proton accelerators have been transformed into semi-clinical facilities and commenced treatments. One such facility at the Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory (Cambridge, MA) had a 160 MeV accelerator well suited for the treatment of cranial neoplasms¹ in parallel with similar practice in Sweden,² eyes³ and large field treatments.⁴ These sites were managed in three semi-independent clinical programmes that persist today at the F H Burr Proton Therapy Center at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.The large field programme required the development of proton field scattering and energy modulation techniques to achieve uniform fields and spread-out Bragg peak modulated (SOBP) fields of constant penetration range and modulation. The large field programme was only possible after the introduction of CT to model these fields, with apertures and range compensators to control the lateral extent and penetration around the three dimensional (3D) target volume extent as identified on CT.^5,6 The fields were created by mechanical means, which allowed their early clinical use in the absence of electronic controls.The practice of SOBP proton radiotherapy required all the quality management features of modern radiotherapy: volumetric treatment planning, accurate immobilization and verification and on-treatment imaging. The practice of SOBP proton radiotherapy established the axiom of radiotherapy: accuracy improves healthy tissue dose avoidance and target coverage and higher target dose achieves cure. The promise and realization of cure was demonstrated in patients with otherwise incurable chordoma.^7,8 The practice of SOBP proton radiotherapy persists today, and most patients are still treated with SOBP fields.The primary proton beam out of an accelerator is, in the absence of scattering materials, a collimated well-circumscribed “pencil” beam and easily manipulated by electromagnetic means. The proton pencil beam allows dose modulation in the patient with four degrees of freedom: number of protons (NP) to control the local dose deposition, energy to control the local penetration and magnetic deflection to control the off-axis position. The size of the pencil beam is a fifth degree of freedom although not readily available. Spot size control would positively impact delivery efficiency, as “larger” spots can deliver more protons in vivo given safety constraints (see section on back-of-the-envelope calculations), albeit possibly with an increase of integral dose. The spot size is typically characterized by the gaussian width σ of the pencil beam lateral intensity distribution and quantified in air at the isocentre.Proton pencil beams thus have one (or two) more degrees of freedom, penetration dose modulation, compared with intensity modulated radiotherapy [IMRT or volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)] fields. Proton fields (at dose equilibrium) exhibit the charged-particle Bragg peak depth dose characterized by a sharp dose increase, the “spot” at the energy characteristic penetration range and absence of dose beyond this distal range. The full electromagnetic control of the heavy-charged-particle pencil beam combined with the Bragg peak and absence of distal dose makes pencil beam scanning (PBS) an easier and more powerful delivery system for modulated therapy compared with the mechanical multileaf collimators (MLCs) required in X-ray IMRT (or VMATs), as well as the creation of SOBP fields.We use the label “pencil beam (spot) scanning” (where “spot” refers to the location of the Bragg peak in the patient) for the technical mode of delivery and the label “intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT)” for the clinical mode of PBS where each individual field is allowed to assume an arbitrary dose distribution, and only the full set of fields in the treatment fraction, as in IMRT, assumes the desired dose fraction distribution. Other clinical modes exist, but IMPT is simply the desired, although presumably the most challenging, goal of PBS and our focus here.Clinical PBS was systematically developed and applied at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen Switzerland.^9,10 Their original clinical system consisted of a very compact isocentric gantry combined with a couch and a scanning system that scanned a single line of pencil beams (i.e. irradiating planes in the patient) and thus required patient movement to accommodate multiple planes. The gantry transported protons at a fixed set of constant energies, whose energy at the patient was modulated by a set of mechanical degraders. The system implemented full modulation of all pencil beam parameters, albeit by considerable mechanical means. This unique design demonstrates, amongst other things, the possible variability of delivery systems, although all modern systems employ near-complete electromagnetic modes to implement scanning. Nevertheless, modern system designs and choice of components will influence the technical and clinical quality of scanning.As stated, technical, physical and clinical challenges remain for the effective clinical deployment of IMPT. A pre-IMPT point–counterpoint argued that while IMPT may in-silico outperform IMRT, its expense and complexity exceeds that of IMRT and that of SOBP treatments.¹¹ A rebuttal¹² argued that IMPT will become generally available and its use necessary to fully exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton radiotherapy. Indeed, IMPT (or more precisely PBS) delivery technology is now standard and is, in fact, more cost-effective and simpler in terms of commissioning¹³ and operation compared with other delivery modes of proton radiotherapy. Overall costs, depending on accounting, are generally assumed to be twice that of IMRT and remain an issue.The sections below elaborate on these individual issues. We argue that clinical IMPT requires a system approach whereby the current (i.e. in X-ray radiotherapy) individuality of treatment management components must be integrated to achieve optimal performance. Optimal performance combined with exploitation of dosimetric advantages, in turn, can lead to an improved cost profile. The hypothesis is if IMRT is cost-effective in some end point (see, for example, Kohler et al¹⁴), then IMPT can exceed this cost-effectiveness criterion through additional dose advantages or through increased performance such as may be achieved through hypofractionation.     

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。     

Intensity modulated radiation therapy: a clinical review

Intensity modulated radiotherapy represents a significant advance in conformal radiotherapy. In particular, it allows the delivery of dose distributions with concave isodose profiles such that radiosensitive normal tissue close to, or even within a concavity of, a tumour may be spared from radiation injury. This article reviews the clinical application of this technique to date, and discusses the practical issues of treatment planning and delivery from the clinician's perspective.     

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.     

高剂量容积旋转调强放射治疗脊柱转移瘤的疗效分析

目的分析容积旋转调强放射治疗脊柱转移瘤的临床疗效。方法采用容积旋转调强放射治疗20例脊柱转移瘤患者,45~60 Gy/15~20次,3 Gy/次,1次/d;采用数字评分法（NRS）、语言模拟疼痛评分法（VRS）、生活质量骨转移量表（EORTC QLQ-BM22）评估患者放疗前至随访结束各个时间段的疼痛缓解和生活质量改善情况。脊髓神经功能采用Frankel分级评价。主要研究终点为疼痛完全缓解,次要研究终点为患者死亡。结果至随访结束,20例脊柱转移瘤患者无疼痛患者数由放疗前0/20例上升至10/14例,差异有统计学意义（t=20.24,P<0.05）。患者NRS评分显示,放疗1和4周疼痛评分均低于放疗前,由（6.50±0.51）分下降至（4.30±0.47）分和（2.50±0.50）分,差异均有统计学意义（t=15.98、27.57,P<0.05）,止痛能维持至随访结束。疼痛缓解伴强阿片类止痛药使用的下降,放疗后6月内强阿片类止痛药使用人数由16/20例下降至6/18例,差异有统计学意义（t=8.46,P<0.05）。EORTC QLQ-BM22生活质量评分显示放疗后患者在疼痛部位、程度和功能方面均较放疗前明显改善,总分由放疗前（46.50±1.50）分下降至（38.35±0.98）分,差异有统计学意义（t=21.51,P<0.05）,社会心理方面变化不大（P>0.05）。放疗前脊髓神经功能缺陷的患者放疗后6个月脊髓神经功能均得到改善,未出现脊髓神经放射性损伤。所有患者中位生存时间为10个月。结论容积旋转调强放射治疗脊柱转移瘤能够明显减轻患者疼痛、显著改善机体功能,患者生活质量明显提高,无脊髓神经放射性损伤等晚期并发症的发生。     

Dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Background and purposeTo compare the dosimetric performance of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) in terms of target volume coverage and sparing of neurological organs-at-risk (OARs) in salvaging recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC). The maximum dose to the internal carotid artery (ICA) and nasopharyngeal (NP) mucosa, which are associated with potential carotid blowout and massive epistaxis, were also evaluated.Materials and methodsIMRT and IMPT treatment plans were created for twenty patients with locally advanced rNPC. Planning Target Volume (PTV) was used to account for the setup and spatial error/uncertainty in the IMRT planning. Robust optimization on Clinical Target Volume (CTV) coverage with consideration of range and setup uncertainty was employed to produce two IMPT plans with 3-field and 4-field arrangements. The planning objective was to deliver 60 Gy to the PTV (IMRT) and CTV (IMPT) without exceeding the maximum lifetime cumulative Biologically Effective Dose (BED) of the neurological OARs (applied to the Planning organs-at-risk volume). The target dose coverage as well as the maximum dose to the neurological OARs, ICA, and NP mucosa were compared.ResultsCompared with IMRT, 3-field IMPT achieved better coverage to GTV V100% (83.3% vs. 73.2%, P <0.01) and CTV V100% (80.5% vs. 72.4%, P <0.01), and lower maximum dose to the critical OARs including the spinal cord (19.2 Gy vs. 22.3 Gy, P <0.01), brainstem (30.0 Gy vs. 32.3 Gy, P <0.01) and optic chiasm (6.6 Gy vs. 9.8 Gy, P <0.01). The additional beam with the 4-fields IMPT plans further improved the target coverage from the 3-field IMPT (CTV V98%: 85.3% vs. 82.4%, P <0.01) with similar OAR sparing. However, the target dose was highly non-uniform with both IMPT plans, leading to a significantly higher maximum dose to the ICA (～68 Gy vs. 62.6 Gy, P <0.01) and NP mucosa (～72 Gy vs. 62.8 Gy, P <0.01) than IMRT.ConclusionIMPT demonstrated some dosimetric advantage over IMRT in treating rNPC. However, IMPT could also result in very high dose hot spots in the target volume. Careful consideration of the ICA and NP mucosal complications is recommended when applying IMPT on rNPC patients.