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.     

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。     

旋转调强与固定野逆向调强放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学比较研究

Objective To evaluate the performace of fixed field Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc in the radiotherapy for multiple intracranial metastases.Methods The clinical data of 10 patients with multiple intracranial metastases,8 male and 2 female,aged 65-73,were used to design 3 plans:fixed field IMRT,RapidArc with single Arc (RA1),and RapidArc with double Arc (Arc 2).Dose-volume-histogram analysis was used to compare dose results,monitor unit,and delivery time.Results All 3 plans met the clinical requirements.The best target conformity and homogeneity were observed in the RA2 plan (Z = -2.803,- 2.904,P ＜ 0.05) and there were no statistical differences between the IMRT plan and RA1 plan.The maximum doses to the lens,eyes,and brainstem of the two RapidArc plans were all significantly lower than those of the IMRT plan(Z = -2.803--2.191 ,P ＜0.05),and the maximum dose to the optic nerves of the RA2 plan was significantly lower than that of the IMRT plan (Z = -2.293,-2.701 ,P ＜0.05).Compared with the IMRT plan,the average monitor units of the RA1 and RA2 plans were reduced by 29% and 24%,respectively,and the delivery time of these plans were significantly shorter by 84% and 69%,respectively.Conclusions Compared to the IMRT plan,RapidArc plans with single or double Arcs show similar or better effects in the target dose distribution,reduction of irradiation doses on organs at risk and,moreover,significant decrease of the monitor units and delivery time.     

VMAT与IMRT在局部晚期宫颈癌放疗中的剂量学差异

目的 比较分析容积弧形调强放射治疗（VMAT）与固定野调强适形放射治疗（IMRT） 在局部晚期宫颈癌延伸野放疗计划中的剂量学差异。 方法 回顾性分析2019年1月至2021年12月南京医科大学附属淮安第一医院收治的20例宫颈癌患者的临床资料,患者年龄（56.3±9.1）岁,范围39~78岁,均行CT扫描,对所有患者进行计划靶区（PTV）、转移淋巴结计划靶区（PGTVnd）以及膀胱、直肠、双侧股骨头、 肝、双肾、小肠、脊髓等危及器官的勾画。按照随机数字表法将患者分为IMRT 组和VMAT组,每组10例,分别进行IMRT 和VMAT的放疗计划;其中IMRT 组患者年龄（54.1±7.1）岁,VMAT组患者年龄（58.1±10.8）岁。比较2组患者靶区的剂量参数、危及器官的剂量参数以及机器总跳数、有效治疗时间。计量资料的组间比较采用t检验。 结果 在PTV中,VMAT组的适形指数（0.81±0.03）高于IMRT组（0.79±0.23）,且差异有统计学意义（t=−2.190,P=0.035）。在PGTVnd中,VMAT组的均匀性指数（0.06±0.01）低于IMRT组（0.07±0.01）,且差异有统计学意义（t=−2.315,P=0.026）。在膀胱受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy（Vx Gy表示接受≥x Gy照射的体积占总体积的百分比）为（92.64±2.29）%,低于IMRT组的（93.98±1.47）%,且差异有统计学意义（t=2.220,P=0.032）。在直肠受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy为（92.20±2.21）%,低于IMRT组的（93.68±1.88）%,且差异有统计学意义（t=2.282,P=0.028）。在肝受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V10 Gy、V20 Gy分别为（7.73±0.39）%、（5.14±0.68）%,均低于IMRT组的V10 Gy[（7.93±0.10）%]、V20 Gy[（5.51±0.16）%],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.372、2.367,P=0.023、0.023）。在小肠受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy、V30 Gy、V40 Gy和平均剂量（Dmean）分别为（77.67±4.64）%、（39.21±1.10）%、（18.35±3.05）%和（30.36±3.46） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（80.24±1.05）%]、V30 Gy[（42.34±6.00）%]、V40 Gy[（22.34±6.01）%]和Dmean[（34.23±6.71） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.228~2.628,均P<0.05）。在脊髓受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy和Dmean分别为（38.81±2.33）%和（11.46±4.26） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（42.88±6.19）%]和Dmean[（17.97±7.40） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.752、3.410,P=0.009、0.002）。在左肾受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy和Dmean分别为（11.67±2.36）%和（10.02±2.19） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（15.56±7.50）%]和Dmean[（14.06±7.29） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.216、2.375,P=0.033、0.023）。在右肾受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy和Dmean分别为（11.72±2.31）%和（10.07±2.15） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（16.67±6.92）%]和Dmean[（13.92±7.17） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=3.030、2.295,P=0.004、0.027）。在左股骨头受照射剂量中,VMAT组的 V10 Gy、V20 Gy、V30 Gy、V40 Gy、V50 Gy及Dmean均低于IMRT组[（74.77±2.33）%对（78.51±7.46）%、（34.37±2.74）%对（38.91±7.20）%、（14.77±2.33）%对（18.51±7.46）%、（2.99±1.03）%对（4.98±3.73）%、（0.48±0.22）%对（0.99±0.65）%、（34.32±2.79） Gy对（38.41±6.67） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.147~3.359,均P<0.05）。在右股骨头受照射剂量中,VMAT组的 V50 Gy为（0.02±0.01）%,低于 IMRT组的V50 Gy[0.03±0.01%],且差异有统计学意义（t=2.997,P=0.005）。VMAT组的机器总跳数为（536.16±42.37）,低于IMRT组的（614.44±59.44）,且差异有统计学意义（t=−5.362,P<0.001）;VMAT组的有效治疗时间为（152.23±0.31） min,短于IMRT组的（453.88±9.94） min,且差异有统计学意义（t=−151.708,P<0.001）。 结论 对于局部晚期宫颈癌,VMAT计划的适形度及均匀性较好,更能保护危及器官,且可减少机器跳数,缩短治疗时间。     

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.     

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。     

Impact of multileaf collimator leaf positioning accuracy on intensity modulated radiation therapy

In multileaf collimator (MLC)-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the dose is influenced by the uncertainty of MLC driving control. In this study, we examined the influence of MLC driving control accuracy on dose evaluation (gamma analysis) by evaluating 60-day MLC driving control accuracy (stationary positioning accuracy and positioning reproducibility) once a week as well as measuring IMRT dose distribution. The MLC positioning accuracy accompanied variation over time and tended to expand by 0.1 to 0.15 mm in one week and about 1 mm in 60 days. In terms of reproducibility, errors were within 0.2 mm for more than 95%. For prostate IMRT, when MLC stationary positioning accuracy was around 1 mm, no significant difference was observed in the pass rate in gamma analysis. Therefore, the results suggest that regular maintenance by setting a permissible value determined by the MLC positioning accuracy test can be an effective indicator in the future for maintaining the safety of IMRT.     

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。     

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。     

Dosimetric implications of inter- and intrafractional prostate positioning errors during tomotherapy

Introduction

For high-dose radiation therapy (RT) of prostate cancer, image-guided (IGRT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) approaches are standard. Less is known regarding comparisons of different IGRT techniques and the resulting residual errors, as well as regarding their influences on dose distributions.

Patients and methods

A total of 58 patients who received tomotherapy-based RT up to 84?Gy for high-risk prostate cancer underwent IGRT based either on daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) alone (n = 43) or the additional use of gold markers (n = 15) under routine conditions. Planned Adaptive (Accuray Inc., Madison, WI, USA) software was used for elaborated offline analysis to quantify residual interfractional prostate positioning errors, along with systematic and random errors and the resulting safety margins after both IGRT approaches. Dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and exposition of organs at risk (OAR) were also analyzed and compared. Interfractional as well as intrafractional displacements were determined.

Results

Particularly in the vertical direction, residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using the gold marker-based approach, but dosimetric differences were moderate and the clinical relevance relatively small. Intrafractional prostate motion proved to be quite high, with displacements of 1–3?mm; however, these did not result in additional dosimetric impairments.

Conclusion

Residual interfractional positioning errors were reduced using gold marker-based IGRT; however, this resulted in only slightly different final dose distributions. Therefore, daily MVCT-based IGRT without markers might be a valid alternative.

     

乳腺癌保乳术后两野与多野动态调强的剂量学研究

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后切线2野动态调强与非共面多野调强放疗治疗靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异。方法 选取40例接受保乳术后放疗的左侧乳腺癌患者,在同一患者CT影像上,利用相同优化条件分别进行切线2野和非共面3、4、5野4种调强治疗计划设计。比较4种计划的靶区剂量分布、心脏、左肺及右侧乳腺受照剂量和体积,以及机器跳数的差异。结果 非共面4、5野调强计划适形度指数（CI）和均匀性指数（HI）均优于切线2野调强计划（P<0.05）,临床靶区（PTV）最大剂量（D_max）小于2野调强计划（P<0.05）,PTV最小剂量（D_min）大于2野调强计划（P<0.05）。3野与2野计划间无明显差异。4种计划的右乳接受5 Gy照射的百分体积（V₅）、心脏接受30 Gy照射的百分体积（V₃₀）及平均剂量（D_mean）、左肺接受20和5 Gy照射的百分体积（V₂₀、V₅）、平均剂量（D_mean）无明显差异,而机器跳数间差异有统计学意义（F=25.63,P<0.05）,2野调强跳数最少,5野最多。结论 保乳术后非共面4、5野调强计划与切线2野调强计划相比,靶区剂量分布更好,不明显增加正常组织、器官的受照射剂量,但机器跳数明显增加。     

脑胶质瘤三维适形放射治疗与调强放射治疗的剂量学比较

目的 评价脑胶质瘤调强放射治疗较三维适形放射治疗的剂量学优势.方法 本研究采用10例脑胶质瘤患者,针对所有患者分别进行3D CRT和IMRT的计划设计,利用剂量体积直方图评价不同照射技术中靶区和正常组织照射剂量、适形度指数和不均匀性指数.处方剂量为60 Gy.结果 IMRT计划脑干最大剂量和受照体积、患侧腮腺平均剂量和脊髓最大剂量均低于3D CRT计划.对于靶区适形度指数,IMRT计划优于3D CRT计划;对于不均匀性指数,两种计划模式的差异没有统计学意义.结论 在脑胶质瘤放疗中应用IMRT可以明显降低脑干的剂量和受照体积,为靶区剂量的提高提供了可能性.     

脑胶质瘤三维适形放射治疗与调强放射治疗的剂量学比较

目的 评价脑胶质瘤调强放射治疗较三维适形放射治疗的剂量学优势。方法 本研究采用10例脑胶质瘤患者,针对所有患者分别进行3D CRT和IMRT的计划设计,利用剂量体积直方图评价不同照射技术中靶区和正常组织照射剂量、适形度指数和不均匀性指数。处方剂量为60 Gy。结果 IMRT计划脑干最大剂量和受照体积、患侧腮腺平均剂量和脊髓最大剂量均低于3D CRT计划。对于靶区适形度指数,IMRT计划优于3D CRT计划;对于不均匀性指数,两种计划模式的差异没有统计学意义。结论 在脑胶质瘤放疗中应用 IMRT可以明显降低脑干的剂量和受照体积,为靶区剂量的提高提供了可能性。     

The impact of daily bladder filling on small bowel dose for intensity modulated radiation therapy for cervical cancer

Research demonstrates that instructing patients to have a full bladder for pelvic radiotherapy results in highly variable bladder volumes at daily treatment. We aimed to determine bladder volume variation in patients with intact cervical cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on an empty bladder and estimate the difference in radiation dose to the small bowel compared to treating on a full bladder. We identified 29 patients treated with IMRT from 2010 to 2013 who underwent 2 planning computed tomography (CT) scans, 1 with a full bladder followed by 1 with an empty bladder. Interfractional variation in bladder volume was measured using 782 daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. To estimate dose to small bowel, radiation plans were created on both empty and full bladder CT scans using an automated knowledge-based planning modeling program. Mean bladder volume with empty bladder instructions was 67 ± 26 cc compared to 91 ± 43 cc for no bladder instructions and 154 ± 54 cc for full bladder instructions (p < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in the absolute bladder volume variation in patients given empty bladder instructions compared to full bladder instructions (p < 0.05) The intraclass correlation coefficient showed low reliability of bladder filling across all groups (p = 0.6). The average bowel V45 for the empty bladder plans was 188 cc, compared to 139 cc for the full bladder plans (p < 0.05). More plans created on an empty bladder exceeded Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines but this was not significant (31% vs 14%, p = 0.12). Reliability of bladder volume at the time of radiation treatment is low, regardless of bladder filling instructions, although an empty bladder reduces absolute variation in bladder volume. Radiation planning on an empty bladder predicts a larger volume of small bowel receiving 45 Gy compared to a full bladder, although bowel dose on average is still within QUANTEC guidelines (V45 < 195 cc).     

Dosimetric effects of roll rotational setup errors on lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy using volumetric modulated arc therapy

Objective:

To evaluate the dosimetric effects of roll-rotational setup errors of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods:

A total of 23 lung SABR cases were evaluated retrospectively. Each of the planning CT images was intentionally rotated by ±1°, ±2° and ±3°. After that, to simulate the translational couch correction, rotated CT images were moved along the x, y and z axis to match the centroid of the target volume in the rotated CT images with that in the original CT images. The differences in D_95% and V_100% of the target volume, D_0.35cc of spinal cord, D_0.35cc and D_5cc of oesophagus and V_20Gy of lung between the original and the rotated CT images were calculated.

Results:

The average differences in D_95% and V_100% of target volume, D_0.35cc of spinal cord, D_0.35cc and D_5cc of oesophagus and V_20Gy of lung were −0.3% ± 0.4% and −0.7% ± 2.4%, 1.6 ± 27.9 cGy, −1.6 ± 37.6 cGy, 15.9 ± 25.3 cGy and 0.0% ± 0.1%, respectively. The dosimetric changes in organs at risk (OARs) near the target volume were sometimes considerable due to roll-rotational setup errors, despite the translational correction, and those were patient specific.

Conclusion:

In the case of coplanar VMAT for lung SABR, dosimetric changes to the target volume due to roll-rotational setup errors could be compensated by translational correction, whereas those to the OARs could not in some cases.

Advances in knowledge:

Roll-rotational setup errors would increase the dose to OARs despite the translational correction.     

中下段食管癌调强放疗布野方案剂量学比较

目的 分析中下段食管癌放疗中5野调强计划与7野调强计划的差异,寻找布野最佳方案.方法 分别为接受调强放射治疗的12例中下段食管癌患者设计5野调强计划与7野调强计划,计划设计中要求95％的计划靶体积达到处方剂量.在每个病例中,分别比较两种计划的剂量体积直方图统计数据、剂量均匀指数、剂量适形指数.结果 两种方案中,7野调强计划的靶区剂量适形度较好(t=2.681,P＜0.05);两种方案的剂量均匀指数、脊髓受照剂量、心脏受照剂量之间的差异无统计学意义;5野调强计划的双肺V5、V10、V15较低(t=-7.938、-12.055和4.859,P均＜0.05).结论 在中下段食管癌放疗中,与7野调强计划相比,5野调强计划可以减少肺部的低剂量受照体积,同时提供可以接受的计划靶体积适形度,有助于减少肺部辐射损伤的发生概率,改善患者生存质量,值得在临床工作中推广应用.