胸上段食管癌螺旋断层放疗和容积旋转调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸上段食管癌螺旋断层(HT)与容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)计划的剂量学差异。方法 随机抽样法选取10例胸上段食管癌患者,分别设计HT和VMAT双弧照射调强放疗计划,肿瘤靶区体积(GTV)给予66 Gy/30次,计划靶区体积(PTV)给予50 Gy/30次。根据剂量体积直方图(DVH)评价靶区的D_1%、D_5%、D_95%、D_99%、适形指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)和危及器官(OAR)受量,比较治疗时间和机器跳数(MU)的差异。结果 HT组GTV和PTV的D_99%高于VMAT组(t=4.476、3.756,P<0.05);GTV与PTV的D_1%、D_5%、D_95%、HI和CI差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。HT组全肺V₁₀、V₁₅、V₂₀和全肺平均剂量(MLD)均显著低于VMAT组(t=-3.369、-4.824、-4.869、-3.657,P<0.05);全肺V₅、V₃₀和脊髓D_max差异均无统计学意义(P >0.05)。HT组治疗时间和MU数均远大于VMAT组(t=13.970、7.982,P<0.05)。结论 HT与VMAT技术均能满足胸上段食管癌放疗剂量要求。HT技术能显著减小双肺受量,而VMAT技术具备明显的效率优势。     

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。     

内镜下钛夹标记在食管癌三维适形放疗靶区勾画中的应用

目的 比较胸上段食管癌螺旋断层(HT)与容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)计划的剂量学差异。方法 随机抽样法选取10例胸上段食管癌患者,分别设计HT和VMAT双弧照射调强放疗计划,肿瘤靶区体积(GTV)给予66 Gy/30次,计划靶区体积(PTV)给予50 Gy/30次。根据剂量体积直方图(DVH)评价靶区的D_1%、D_99%、D_5%、D_95%、适形指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)和危及器官(OAR)受量,比较治疗时间和机器跳数(MU)的差异。结果 HT组GTV和PTV的D_99%高于VMAT组(t=4.476、3.756,P<0.05);GTV与PTV的D_1%、D_5%、D_95%、HI和CI差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。HT组全肺V₁₀、V₁₅、V₂₀和全肺平均剂量(MLD)均显著低于VMAT组(t=-3.369、-4.824、-4.869、-3.657,P<0.05);全肺V₅、V₃₀和脊髓D_max差异均无统计学意义(P >0.05)。HT组治疗时间和MU数均远大于VMAT组(t=13.970、7.982,P<0.05)。结论 HT与VMAT技术均能满足胸上段食管癌放疗剂量要求。HT技术能显著减小双肺受量,而VMAT技术具备明显的效率优势。     

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。     

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）%]、Dmean[（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）%]、Dmean[（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）%]、Dmean[（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。     

宫颈癌术后螺旋断层放疗与常规加速器调强放疗的剂量学比较

Objective To compare the dosimetric characteristics of helical tomotherapy(HT)and step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT)for post-operative cervix cancer patients. Methods Ten patients with post-operative cervix cancer were enrolled in this study.HT and IMRT plans were developed for each patient.The dose distributions of the targets,organs at risk(OARs),CI and HI were analyzed and compared.The prescribed dose was 60 Gy/25 f for CTV1,50 Gy/25 f for CTV2.The iso-dose line of 50 Gy was used.Results The homogeneity indexes(HI)(0.94±0.03),conformity index(C1)(1.28±0.02)in HT group were better than in IMRT group(0.85±0.01 and 1.36±0.03),respectively(t=5.12,-6.34,P<0.001).The Dmean of PTV in HT group(51.77 Gy)was lower than that in IMRT group(54.53 Gy)(t=-8.01,P<0.05).The Dmax ,Dmean,V30,V40 and V50 of bladder、rectum and small bowel were lower in HT group than those in IM RT group.The Dmax,Dmean,V30 and V40 of right and left femoral head were lower in HT group than those in IMRT group.Conclusion Helical tomotherapy treatment plan has a better homogeneity,steeper dose gradient,and a better protection for organs at risk.     

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

Objective To compare the dosimetric characteristics of helical tomotherapy(HT)and step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT)for post-operative cervix cancer patients. Methods Ten patients with post-operative cervix cancer were enrolled in this study.HT and IMRT plans were developed for each patient.The dose distributions of the targets,organs at risk(OARs),CI and HI were analyzed and compared.The prescribed dose was 60 Gy/25 f for CTV1,50 Gy/25 f for CTV2.The iso-dose line of 50 Gy was used.Results The homogeneity indexes(HI)(0.94±0.03),conformity index(C1)(1.28±0.02)in HT group were better than in IMRT group(0.85±0.01 and 1.36±0.03),respectively(t=5.12,-6.34,P<0.001).The Dmean of PTV in HT group(51.77 Gy)was lower than that in IMRT group(54.53 Gy)(t=-8.01,P<0.05).The Dmax ,Dmean,V30,V40 and V50 of bladder、rectum and small bowel were lower in HT group than those in IM RT group.The Dmax,Dmean,V30 and V40 of right and left femoral head were lower in HT group than those in IMRT group.Conclusion Helical tomotherapy treatment plan has a better homogeneity,steeper dose gradient,and a better protection for organs at risk.     

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。     

螺旋断层固定野和旋转调强放疗技术在全身照射中的应用对比研究

目的 探究使用螺旋断层固定野调强（TD）和螺旋断层旋转调强（HT）放射治疗技术在全身照射（TBI）中的应用对比,并评估TD治疗技术下计划的质量和执行效率,指导临床选择最佳的计划设计方案。方法 对郑州大学第一附属医院收治的8例身高在120 cm左右的已行TBI的急性白血病患者进行回顾性研究,分别选择TD和HT治疗技术进行计划设计,其中TD分别设计2~12内奇数个均分射野的计划,且起始角度分别从180°和0°开始,其余计划参数都保持一致。最后对设计好的计划剂量分布进行统计,比较TD与HT治疗技术下的计划在靶区的平均剂量（PTV_Dmean）、均匀性指数（HI）和危及器官（OARs）受量,以评估计划质量,并比较治疗出束时间以评估治疗效率。结果 9野的TD计划相对于HT计划在PTV_Dmean和靶区HI能达到一致效果,差异无统计学意义。但TD<9野的计划相对于HT计划在PTV_Dmean（t=-3.12、-5.41、-20.33、-4.56、-7.22、-11.27,P<0.05）和靶区HI（t=-2.94、-5.18、-15.66、-4.31、-5.51、-9.13,P<0.05）无剂量学优势,差异有统计学意义。同时TD计划中起始角度对PTV_Dmean和靶区HI没有影响。在危及器官方面,≥ 7野TD计划与HT计划在左肺平均剂量与右肺平均剂量差异无统计学意义;左眼晶状体计划危及体积（PRV）的最大剂量（2.14±0.60）Gy与右眼晶状体PRV最大剂量（3.05±0.10）Gy在3野TD计划与HT计划差异有统计学意义（t=0.77、0.63,P<0.05）,眼晶状体PRV在最大剂量方面具有一定优势。治疗出束时间差异无统计学意义。TD计划中起始角度对左右眼晶状体PRV最大剂量、左肺平均剂量及治疗出束时间没有影响。结论 对于≥ 9野的TD调强计划相对于HT计划在靶区、危及器官及治疗出束时间方面能达到一致的结果,但在眼晶状体PRV最大剂量方面具有一定优势。     

螺旋断层放疗提升鼻咽癌放疗剂量的可行性研究

目的 探讨应用螺旋断层放疗(HT)进行鼻咽癌放疗处方剂量提升的可行性及剂量学特点。方法 选取10例9野静态调强放疗的鼻咽癌计划,制定HT计划和静态调强(sIMRT)计划。在危及器官(OAR)符合正常组织临床影响量化分析标准的前提下,提升两组计划处方剂量,并比较剂量提升空间及处方剂量提升后两者的剂量学差异。结果 与sIMRT计划相比,HT计划所达到的处方剂量比sIMRT计划增加了42.6%(t=6.373,P<0.01);处方剂量提升后,HT计划的均匀性指数仍优于sIMRT计划(t=-2.288,P<0.05),但适形度指数略低于sIMRT计划(P>0.05)。限制HT计划处方剂量提升的OAR为脊髓(2例)、视神经(5例)、脑干(3例);限制sIMRT计划处方剂量提升的OAR为眼晶状体(1例)、脊髓(1例)、腮腺(8例)。结论 HT的高束流调强能力,使其在有效保护OAR的前提下,能够提高鼻咽癌放疗处方剂量。在sIMRT实现高处方剂量要求存在困难时,可考虑使用HT进行放疗。     

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.     

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.     

动态钨门技术在中段食管癌螺旋断层调强放疗中的应用

目的 评价螺旋断层调强放疗（TOMO）设备升级后,能否用5.0 cm动态钨门替代2.5 cm固定钨门治疗中段食管癌。方法 对中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院收治的10例局部晚期根治性中段食管癌患者进行研究。在TOMO计划系统分别设计2.5 cm固定钨门（FJ2.5）、2.5 cm动态钨门（DJ2.5）和5.0 cm动态钨门（DJ5.0）计划。比较3种计划的靶区适形度指数（CI）、均匀性指数（HI）和危及器官（OAR）受量以评价计划质量;比较出束时间和机器跳数以评价效率。结果 3种计划的靶区CI和HI均满足临床要求。与DJ5.0计划相比,FJ2.5计划的双肺V₅和平均剂量、正常组织V₅、V₁₀和平均剂量均增加,差异有统计学意义（t=9.751、4.163、11.840、10.321、3.745,P<0.05）,DJ2.5计划的心脏V₃₀、V₄₀、平均剂量和最大剂量、正常组织V₂₀和平均剂量均降低,差异有统计学意义（-2.454、-3.275、-4.192、-6.435、-4.139、-6.431,P<0.05）。与DJ2.5计划相比,FJ2.5计划的双肺V₅、V₂₀、V₃₀和平均剂量、心脏V₃₀和平均剂量、脊髓和脊髓计划体积（PRV）最大剂量、正常组织V₅、V₁₀、V₂₀和平均剂量均增加,差异有统计学意义（t=8.289、6.142、3.137、8.895、3.597、4.565、3.782、5.429、16.421、12.496、8.286、11.933,P<0.05）。与FJ2.5和DJ2.5计划相比,DJ5.0计划的平均出束时间分别缩短43.9%和42.8%,平均机器跳数分别减少42.8%和43.8%。结论 若综合考虑计划质量和执行效率,建议采用5.0 cm动态钨门技术用于中段食管癌螺旋断层调强放疗,不但可以有效缩短治疗时间、提高射线利用率,而且与2.5 cm固定钨门技术相比双肺和正常组织保护更好。若只考虑计划质量,建议采用2.5 cm动态钨门技术,其计划质量好。     

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.