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.     

固定野调强放疗对局部晚期肺癌放射性肺炎的影响

放射性肺炎(RP)是胸部放射治疗最主要的剂量限制性不良反应.三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)能够使靶区剂量分布与靶区形状保持一致,靶区周围危及器官暴露体积减少,有可能使患者生存获益[1].固定野调强放疗(IMRT)较3D-CRT进一步提高靶区的剂量学参数,满足靶区剂量分布的需要,更好地避免对危及器官的照射,有助于提升靶区剂量[2-3],即IMRT降低高剂量区参数(如双肺V20和V30)的同时可能会增加低剂量区参数(如双肺V5).早期研究发现V20和V30与RP发生风险相关[4],近年来发现V5与RP也具有显著相关性[5].本研究以3D-CRT为比较,回顾分析了IMRT对RP发生率的影响.     

胃癌术后三维适形放疗及调强放疗靶区勾画研究进展

临床靶区的准确勾画是实施胃癌适形/调强放射治疗（3D-CRT/IMRT）的关键步骤。以往指南曾对胃癌术后2D放疗的照射范围进行了推荐,目前尚缺乏3D-CRT/IMRT时代胃癌术后放疗的靶区勾画共识。本文拟对胃癌术后放射治疗个体化临床靶区勾画的最新研究进展及争议进行介绍。胃癌术后3D-CRT/IMRT放疗靶区有待进一步优化。     

鼻咽癌三种调强放疗计划剂量学对比研究

目的 对比鼻咽癌常规固定野调强（IMRT）、容积旋转调强（VMAT）以及断层调强（HT）3种不同调强放疗计划的剂量学差异。方法 选择18例接受VMAT治疗的鼻咽癌患者,以相同处方剂量和目标条件分别重新进行IMRT和HT计划设计。比较3种计划靶区的均匀度（HI）、适形度（CI）、最大剂量以及平均剂量。危及器官的最大量和平均量以及感兴趣区的剂量体积、计划执行时间和机器跳数（MU）。结果 3种计划在靶区的覆盖率满足临床要求。IMRT计划在靶区的HI和CI方面结果最差,HT计划结果最优。危及器官方面,IMRT计划受量最高,HT计划的脊髓、脑干和腮腺受量最低;但对于视神经、晶状体以及视交叉HT计划的受量最高而VMAT计划的受量最低。IMRT的治疗时间（8.0±0.5） min高于VMAT（3.9±0.1）min和HT（7.4±0.9）min。与VMAT相比,IMRT每次治疗为（711.4±78.7）MU,高于VMAT的（596.4±33.7）MU。结论 鼻咽癌IMRT、VMAT以及HT计划在靶区覆盖和危及器官保护上都可以达到临床要求,在靶区的适形度和均匀性上HT计划优于VMAT和IMRT,但在治疗时间和加速器的机器跳数上VMAT较有优势。     

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.     

三维适形、逆向调强和旋转调强放疗技术治疗胸段食管癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸段食管癌3种放疗技术( 3D-CRT、IMRT、RapidArc)的剂量学特点,并分析3种技术的优劣及应用特点.方法 15例胸段食管癌患者入组,依据CT图像,勾画靶区,针对患者的同一套CT图像的相同靶区分别制定3D-CRT、5野IMRT(IMRT5)、7野IMRT( IMRT7)、9野IMRT(IMRT9)、单弧Arc( Arc1)、双弧Arc( Arc2)共6套计划.PTV处方剂量为40 Gy分20次4周+19.6 Gy分14次7d.结果 3D-CRT计划各项靶区剂量学参数明显差于IMRT计划及RapidArc计划(t=5.77、3.52,P＜0.05),6套计划的PTV V95(％)分别为:3D-CRT (91.55 ±2.90),IMRT5(96.66±1.05),IMRT7 (96.87±1.23),IMRT (96.81±1.16),Arcl (94.98±1.41),Arc2 (95.93±1.32).RapidArc计划的靶区适形度(CI)最好(t=3.76,10.01,P＜0.05),IMRT计划的靶区均匀性(HI)最好(t =3.93、3.37,P＜0.05).危及器官参数RapidArc与IMRT各计划之间差异无统计学意义.3D-CRT和RapidArc计划的机器跳数明显少于IMRT计划,差异高达75％.结论 对于胸段食管癌患者,采用IMRT或RapidArc技术可以在保护正常组织的同时,涵盖临床必需的治疗靶区.3D-CRT计划对降低正常组织低剂量散射区方面优势明显.RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势.     

宫颈癌复发放疗中不同照射方式的剂量学研究

目的针对宫颈癌复发病例,比较逆向调强(IMRT)、三维适形(3D-CRT)及超级伽玛刀弧形适形(SGS-CRT)三种照射方式的剂量学特点。方法对15例宫颈癌复发患者进行IMRT、3D-CRT及SGS-CRT计划设计,以包绕计划靶区(PTV)体积95%的等剂量线为处方剂量线,分别给予50Gy的处方剂量,分次方案均为2Gy×25次,根据剂量-体积直方图(DVH)评价三种照射方式中靶区和危及器官的剂量学特点。结果 3D-CRT的95%处方剂量包括靶区体积(99.9%±0.2%)高于IMRT(99.5%±0.5%)及SGS-CRT(99.3%±0.8%,P<0.05);SGS-CRT的靶区剂量梯度(85%±20%)明显高于IMRT(10%±7%)及3D-CRT(8%±5%,P<0.05);IMRT的适形指数(0.9±0.3)优于SGS-CRT(0.8±0.2,P<0.05),且SGS-CRT优于3D-CRT(0.7±0.5,P<0.05)。DVH显示,在10~30Gy之间,SGS-CRT膀胱平均受照体积(27.8%)明显低于IMRT(40.1%)和3D-CRT(57.4%,P<0.05);在5~45Gy之间,直肠平均受照射体积SGS-CRT(25.4%)明显低于IMRT(48.9%)和3D-CRT(73.2%,P<0.05);在小肠剂量分布上,三种照射方式无显著差异。结论在宫颈癌复发放疗中,SGS-CRT具有一定剂量学优势,值得在临床应用中进一步探讨。     

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。     

基于食管癌放射治疗计划的剂量学研究

目的应用三维治疗计划系统（3D—TPS）比较研究食管癌的不同照射方法，评价常规三野等中心照射（RT）、三维适形（3D～CRT）、调强适形放射治疗（IMRT）在靶区剂量及正常组织保护方面的不同。方法采用三维治疗计划系统对12例经病理证实的中下段食管癌的患者CT定位图像分别设计3种放射治疗计划，分别为RT，3 D—CRT，IMRT，计划的处方剂量均为50 Gy，通过治疗计划及剂量体积直方图（DVH）比较靶区及危及器官剂量的差异。结果RT，3 D—CRT，IMRT的95％计划靶体积（PTV）及95％大体肿瘤体积（GTV）的剂量有统计学意义，3 D—CRT和IMRT优于RT；3种计划的靶区适形度指数、PTV剂量变异度指数、处方剂量覆盖GTV百分比均以IMRT计划为最好，3D—CRT、IMRT减少了双肺受照20 Gu体积百分比（V20），均有统计学意义；3种计划的脊髓最大所受剂量、心脏1／3体积的所受剂量均在可耐受的范围内，IMRT为最小，P〉0．05。结论3 D—CRT、IMRT在靶区适形度和靶区剂量上均优于RT，能获得均匀的剂量分布，且能降低周围敏感器官的所受剂量，正常组织所受剂量均能在耐受范围内。     

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

目的 比较三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)与5野、7野调强适形放疗(IMRT)的剂量分布,以探讨IMRT对直肠癌术前放疗的价值。方法 对10例术前新辅助放化疗直肠癌患者,分别设计3D- CRT、5野IMRT、7野IMRT计划,应用剂量体积直方图(DVH),比较3种治疗计划的靶区适形度指数(CI)、不均匀性指数(HI)和正常器官受量。结果 适形度指数(CI)7野IMRT计划＞5野IMRT＞3D- CRT,不均匀性指数(HI)5野IMRT计划＞7野IMRT＞3D- CRT。5野、7野IMRT计划比3D- CRT均可以减少高剂量照射小肠、膀胱、股骨头体积,7野IMRT计划比5野可以减少高剂量照射的骨髓和膀胱的体积。结论 直肠癌术前放疗中IMRT计划在靶区剂量适形度方面均优于3D- CRT计划,对正常组织的保护也存在明显的优势。7野IMRT计划较5野IMRT计划技术有更好的剂量适形度与剂量均匀性。     

Comparative study of dose distribution between carbon ion radiotherapy and photon radiotherapy for head and neck tumor

PURPOSE: A comparative treatment planning study has been performed between carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and photon radiotherapy [three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)] to assess the potential improvements and limitations that could result for locally advanced, nonresectable head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients, originally treated with CIRT, were randomly selected for the comparative study. The evaluations analyzed using dose-volume histogram parameters, conformity index, inhomogeneity coefficient, and dose to the organs at risk (OARs). RESULTS: The mean conformity index was 1.46, 1.43, and 1.22 for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and CIRT, respectively. The mean inhomogeneity coefficient was 0.05, 0.07, and 0.02 for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and CIRT respectively. Photon plans resulted in greater volumes of normal tissues at 10% to 95% isodose levels compared with the corresponding carbon ion plans where the volumes increased by a factor of 1.2 to 2.7 for 3D-CRT and 1.2 to 2.0 for IMRT. CONCLUSION: CIRT has the potential to improve the target dose conformity, inhomogeneity coefficient, and OAR sparing when compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT. Compared with 3D-CRT, normal tissue exposure was reduced mainly in the mid-to low-isodose levels using IMRT. Additional improvement was obtained using CIRT.     

A comparison of conventional, conformal and intensity-modulated coplanar radiotherapy plans for posterior fossa treatment

Radiotherapy of the posterior fossa for medulloblastoma treatment can induce ototoxicity, especially when combined with cisplatin chemotherapy. Sensorineural hearing loss can be severe enough to cause permanent disability, which may compromise cognitive development in paediatric patients. This study evaluates the sparing of the cochlea in conventional radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). CT scans of three patients were used to plan posterior fossa radiotherapy using coplanar beam arrangements. The posterior fossa and the cochlea were contoured as well as other organs-at-risk (non-posterior fossa brain, lenses, optic nerves, pituitary and cervical spinal cord). Three treatment plans were compared: conventional two-dimensional treatment (parallel-opposed lateral pair); 3D-CRT (two wedged posterior oblique fields); and a four-field coplanar IMRT plan. 3D-CRT and IMRT reduced cochlear doses to less than 70% of the mean target dose. These plans also reduced dose to the non-posterior fossa brain and cervical spinal cord. IMRT showed no advantage over 3D-CRT in sparing the optic nerves and lenses, compared with 3D-CRT. Normal tissue doses were higher in both conformal techniques than in the IMRT plans. Conformal techniques reduced the dose to the cochlea, non-posterior fossa brain and cervical spinal cord. The small size and proximity to the planning target volume (PTV) of the cochlea limited the effectiveness of the IMRT plan. Coplanar 3D-CRT was judged superior to coplanar IMRT, particularly in children, because it achieved adequate sparing of the cochlea and anterior cranial structures, such as the lenses and optic nerves, without compromising the dose to the posterior fossa.     

Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for esophageal cancer

A treatment planning study was performed to evaluate the performance of volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc (RA) against 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for esophageal cancer. Computed tomgraphy scans of 10 patients were included in the study. 3D-CRT, 4-field IMRT, and single-arc and double-arc RA plans were generated with the aim to spare organs at risk (OAR) and healthy tissue while enforcing highly conformal target coverage. The planning objective was to deliver 54 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) in 30 fractions. Plans were evaluated based on target conformity and dose-volume histograms of organs at risk (lung, spinal cord, and heart). The monitor unit (MU) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated to measure the treatment efficiency. The IMRT plan improves target conformity and spares OAR when compared with 3D-CRT. Target conformity improved with RA plans compared with IMRT. The mean lung dose was similar in all techniques. However, RA plans showed a reduction in the volume of the lung irradiated at V_20Gy and V_30Gy dose levels (range, 4.62–17.98%) compared with IMRT plans. The mean dose and D_35% of heart for the RA plans were better than the IMRT by 0.5–5.8%. Mean V_10Gy and integral dose to healthy tissue were almost similar in all techniques. But RA plans resulted in a reduced low-level dose bath (15–20 Gy) in the range of 14–16% compared with IMRT plans. The average MU needed to deliver the prescribed dose by RA technique was reduced by 20–25% compared with IMRT technique. The preliminary study on RA for esophageal cancers showed improvements in sparing OAR and healthy tissue with reduced beam-on time, whereas only double-arc RA offered improved target coverage compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT plans.     

Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT) as adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer: Dosimetric comparisons with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)

To compare the dosimetric differences between the single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT), 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in treatment planning for gastric cancer as adjuvant radiotherapy. Twelve patients were retrospectively analyzed. In each patient's case, the parameters were compared based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the sVMAT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT plans, respectively. Three techniques showed similar target dose coverage. The maximum and mean doses of the target were significantly higher in the sVMAT plans than that in 3D-CRT plans and in the 3D-CRT/IMRT plans, respectively, but these differences were clinically acceptable. The IMRT and sVMAT plans successfully achieved better target dose conformity, reduced the V_20/30, and mean dose of the left kidney, as well as the V_20/30 of the liver, compared with the 3D-CRT plans. And the sVMAT technique reduced the V₂₀ of the liver much significantly. Although the maximum dose of the spinal cord were much higher in the IMRT and sVMAT plans, respectively (mean 36.4 vs 39.5 and 40.6 Gy), these data were still under the constraints. Not much difference was found in the analysis of the parameters of the right kidney, intestine, and heart. The IMRT and sVMAT plans achieved similar dose distribution to the target, but superior to the 3D-CRT plans, in adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer. The sVMAT technique improved the dose sparings of the left kidney and liver, compared with the 3D-CRT technique, but showed few dosimetric advantages over the IMRT technique. Studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical benefits of the VMAT treatment for patients with gastric cancer after surgery in the future.     

Postoperative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: To determine the extent of target motion in postprostatectomy radiotherapy (RT) and the value of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 20 patients underwent CT scans in supine position with both a full bladder (FB) and an empty bladder (EB) before RT and at three dates during the RT series. Displacements of the CTV (clinical target volume) center of mass and the posterior border were determined. 3D-CRT and IMRT treatment plans were compared regarding homogeneity, conformity, and dose to organs at risk. RESULTS: In the superior-inferior direction, larger displacements were found for EB compared to FB scans; anterior-posterior and right-left displacements were similar. With an initial rectum volume of < 115 cm(3), 90% of displacements at the posterior border were within a margin of 6 mm. The non-target volume irradiated in the high-dose area doubled in 3D-CRT versus IMRT plans (80 cm(3) vs. 38 cm(3) encompassed by the 95% isodose). Bladder dose was significantly lower with IMRT, but no advantage was found for the integral rectal dose. An adequate bladder filling was paramount to reduce the dose to the bladder. CONCLUSION: Postprostatectomy RT can be recommended with FB due to an improved CTV position consistency and a lower dose to the bladder. With improved non-target tissue and bladder volume sparing, IMRT is an option for dose escalation. However, this analysis did not find an advantage concerning the integral rectal dose with IMRT versus 3D-CRT.