食管癌固定野调强和旋转容积调强计划的剂量学比较

目的 比较固定5野调强和旋转容积调强在中上段食管癌放疗中的剂量学差异。方法 选取2018年10—12月在我科治疗的中上段食管癌病患20例，用Monaco5.11计划系统分别设计固定5野调强IMRT、单弧VMAT1和双弧VMAT2，在靶区剂量覆盖率都为95%的情况下在剂量体积直方图（DVH）上比较3组计划靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异。结果 VMAT1计划靶区剂量分布均匀性指数（HI）和IMRT计划适形性指数（CI）较其他两种要好（P < 0.05），IMRT计划的靶区最大量和平均受量最小。危及器官方面：IMRT计划对降低脊髓最大受量D_max和心脏平均受量D_mean要优于其他两种；VMAT1计划对双肺的保护最好，VMAT2计划在心脏V₃₀、V₄₀的保护中有优势。机器跳数方面：IMRT计划机器总跳数最少，VMAT1计划次之，VMAT2计划机器总跳数最多。结论 对于胸中上段食管癌，5野调强计划具有脊髓最大受量和心脏平均受量低，靶区适形性好，单次机器跳数低等优点，可以满足临床剂量学要求。     

容积旋转调强与固定野调强在宫颈癌根治性放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较容积旋转调强(VMAT)与7野固定野调强(dIMRT)两种放射治疗技术在中晚期宫颈癌放射治疗中的剂量学差异。方法 选取10例不适合行腔内照射的中晚期宫颈癌患者,分别制定7野调强放疗计划和容积旋转调强放疗计划。利用剂量体积直方图来统计GTV和PTV的相关参数、适行指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI),小肠、直肠、膀胱、股骨头正常组织的剂量体积参数,以及机器跳数(MU)及治疗时间。结果 VMAT技术GTV的平均剂量略高于7IMRT且具有统计学意义,GTV的D₂、D₉₈、CI、HI差异无统计学意义,PTV中的D₂、D₉₈、D_mean、CI、HI差异均无统计学意义,VMAT技术直肠的V₄₀、V₄₆、D_mean优于7IMRT且差异有统计学意义,V₁₀、V₂₀、V₃₀差异无统计学意义,两种计划在小肠、膀胱、股骨头的剂量分布差异无统计学差异。VMAT技术机器跳数较7IMRT减少35.68%,平均治疗时间减少61.5%。结论 VMAT技术在剂量分布上与7IMRT相当或略优,但机器跳数和治疗时间明显减少。     

分段弧和全弧旋转容积调强放疗治疗胸中段食管癌的剂量学比较

目的 通过比较不同旋转容积调强放疗（全弧VMAT和分段弧VMAT）治疗胸中段食管癌的剂量学差异，分析应用分段弧VMAT治疗胸中段食管癌的可能性。方法 选择11例胸中段食管癌患者，分别设计全弧VMAT、分段弧VMAT两种治疗计划，统计并比较靶区(PTV)、危及器官(肺、脊髓、心脏)、以及机器总跳数（MU）等参数的剂量学差异。应用SPSS17.0软件对两组数据进行配对t检验分析。结果 全弧VMAT计划PTV D₉₅（t = - 7.699, P = 0.000）、D₉₈(t = - 6.384, P = 0.000)、均匀性指数（HI）(t = 10.423, P = 0.000)均优于分段弧VMAT，分段弧VMAT肺的平均剂量、V₅（t = - 4.048, P = 0.002）要优于全弧VMAT。靶区的适形度指数（CI）、MU、双肺的V₁₀、V₂₀差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论 胸中段食管癌放疗时应用全弧VMAT、分段弧VMAT均可以满足靶区临床要求，但分段弧VMAT可以明显减少肺低剂量区域照射范围。     

食管癌有无均整器模式下的容积旋转调强放疗剂量学比较

目的 比较瓦里安Trilogy直线加速器6MV X射线均整模式(FF)和非均整模式(FFF)下容积旋转调强(VMAT)在食管癌放疗中的剂量学差异.方法 选取20例食管癌患者,在瓦里安Eclipse 15.5版本的计划系统上分别进行VMAT-FF和VMAT-FFF计划设计.处方剂量为PCTV1总剂量6000 cGy/28...     

两种鼻咽癌调强放疗计划的剂量学比较与分析

目的 比较分析鼻咽癌固定射野调强(IMRT)和容积旋转调强(VMAT)计划的靶区和危及器官(OAR)的剂量差异及分次治疗时间和机器跳数的差异。方法 选择在我院接受放疗的15例鼻咽癌患者,对其进行IMRT和VMAT计划设计的比较。结果 靶区:VMAT的大部分参数的HI和CI及D_1%和D_means优于IMRT计划的结果。OAR:虽然脑干的D_means、左右视神经的D_1%及右晶体的D_1%的差异无统计学意义,但其余指标差异均有统计学意义,且VMAT的结果优于IMRT。分次治疗时间:VMAT (4.1 min)要少于IMRT (8.8 min)。分次治疗跳数:VMAT (597.7 MUs)要比IM-RT (823.5 MUs)少约37.8%。结论 鼻咽癌的IMRT和VMAT计划在靶区剂量和OAR保护上都可以达到临床要求,但VMAT的大部分指标要优于IMRT。不过,VMAT在对视神经及晶体等小体积OAR的保护上没有太大优势。VMAT的分次治疗时间和机器跳数都要小于IMRT。     

三维与四维锥形束CT在肺癌容积旋转调强计划精确放射治疗中的比较研究

目的:比较研究三维锥形束CT(3D-CBCT)与四维锥形束CT(4D-CBCT)在肺癌容积旋转调强治疗(VMAT)计划精确放射治疗中的应用。方法:选取在医院接受VAMT放射治疗的101例肺癌患者,根据治疗中扫描模式的不同,将使用3D-CBCT成像的患者纳入3D-CBCT组(45例),将使用4D-CBCT成像的患者纳入4D-CBCT组(56例),比较两组患者治疗中CT图像校正后分次间摆位误差、肿瘤靶区外放边界、肿瘤内靶区(ITV)体积、靶区计划靶体积(PTV)剂量和危及器官(OAR)心脏受照剂量。结果:两组患者治疗中CT图像校正后左右(X轴)方向、前后(Z轴)方向摆位误差均显著下降,差异有统计学意义(Z=-3.005,Z=-2.047;P<0.05),上下(Y轴)方向摆位误差无统计学差异;两组PTV外放范围均在Y轴方向最大;两组肺上叶肿瘤ITV体积差异无统计学意义,4D-CBCT组肺中下叶ITV体积明显低于3D-CBCT组,差异有统计学意义(Z=-2.245,P<0.05);4D-CBCT组靶区最大剂量(D_max)、最小剂量(D_min     

质子调强放疗技术与2种光子旋转调强放疗技术在全中枢照射中的剂量学比较

目的:比较质子调强放疗(intensity modulated proton therapy,IMPT)技术与螺旋断层放疗(helical tomotherapy,HT)、容积旋转调强放疗(volumetric modulated arc therapy,VMAT)2种光子旋转调强放疗技术实施全中枢照射(cranios...     

容积旋转调强放射治疗在直肠癌患者中的应用

目的 探讨容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)在直肠癌患者中的应用效果.方法 回顾性分析2019年11月至2020年12月于医院行放射治疗的10例直肠癌患者的临床资料,对其设计VMAT计划,处方剂量为5000 cGy,通过COMPASS系统对计划进行验证,并利用剂量体积直方图对计划靶区(PTV)、危及器官(OARs)的各指...     

容积旋转调强放疗在宫颈癌患者中的临床疗效及安全性

目的 研究容积旋转调强放疗在宫颈癌患者中的临床疗效及安全性。方法 回顾性分析2019年1月至2020年1月医院收治的80例宫颈癌患者资料,根据不同治疗方法分为观察组和对照组,观察组44例,对照组36例。两组均用锥形束CT进行引导,对照组给予适形调强放疗,观察组给予容积旋转调强放疗,两组随访时间均为2年。比较两组放疗后的远期疗效、计划靶区受照剂量分布、危及器官的受照剂量和不良反应情况。结果 治疗后,观察组临床总有效率明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组的平均剂量分布高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组HI和CI靶区分布的剂量值比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);股骨头受照剂量比较,观察组V₂₀数值高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),V₁₀、V₃₀、D_mean与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);膀胱受照剂量比较,观察组V₂₀剂量值均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),V<...     

两种放疗系统的乳腺癌保乳术后切线弧容积旋转调强放疗计划质量评估与剂量学质量控制检验

目的 探讨TrueBeam与Axesse系统对乳腺癌保乳术后切线弧容积旋转调强放疗(t-VMAT)计划的剂量学特性,评估其计划质量与剂量学质量控制检验结果,为临床应用提供参考。方法 选取2021年8月至2022年2月在福建省肿瘤医院接受放射治疗的16例保乳手术后左侧乳腺癌女性患者为研究对象。对16例患者均利用TrueBeam加速器的Eclipse系统和Axesse加速器的Monaco系统分别设计t-VMAT计划,比较两套系统设计的计划靶区、危及器官剂量学差异,并利用旋转照射剂量测量仪ArcCHECK进行计划剂量学质量控制检验,比较其剂量验证Gamma通过率。结果 两套系统设计的乳腺癌计划均能满足临床要求;靶区方面,均能达到大于95%的处方剂量覆盖;危及器官方面,Eclipse计划的脊髓、心脏、肺受量更低,Monaco计划的健侧乳腺受量更低;跳数方面,Eclipse计划的平均机器跳数比Monaco计划少43.9%;剂量学质量控制方面,两套系统在3%/2 mm标准下的计划验证Gamma通过率都大于95%,均达到临床质量控制要求。结论 对于乳腺癌t-VMAT计划,两套系统均能满足临床应用需求...     

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy planning techniques for prostate cancer in the presence of intrafractional organ deformation

The purpose of this study was to compare single-arc (SA) and double-arc (DA) treatment plans, which are planning techniques often used in prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), in the presence of intrafractional deformation (ID) to determine which technique is superior in terms of target dose coverage and sparing of the organs at risk (OARs). SA and DA plans were created for 27 patients with localized prostate cancer. ID was introduced to the clinical target volume (CTV), rectum and bladder to obtain blurred dose distributions using an in-house software. ID was based on the motion probability function of each structure voxel and the intrafractional motion of the respective organs. From the resultant blurred dose distributions of SA and DA plans, various parameters, including the tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, homogeneity index, conformity index, modulation complexity score for VMAT, dose–volume indices and monitor units (MUs), were evaluated to compare the two techniques. Statistical analysis showed that most CTV and rectum parameters were significantly larger for SA plans than for DA plans (P < 0.05). Furthermore, SA plans had fewer MUs and were less complex (P < 0.05). The significant differences observed had no clinical significance, indicating that both plans are comparable in terms of target and OAR dosimetry when ID is considered. The use of SA plans is recommended for prostate cancer VMAT because they can be delivered in shorter treatment times than DA plans, and therefore benefit the patients.     

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique,helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer

The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.     

Dosimetric impact of rotational setup errors in volumetric modulated arc therapy for postoperative cervical cancer

We aimed to evaluate the impact of rotational setup errors on the doses received during postoperative volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for cervical cancer. Overall, 121 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) sets from 20 patients were rigidly registered to reference computed tomography (CT) sets based on bony landmarks. The rotational setup errors (pitch, yaw and roll) were calculated. Then, 121 CT sets involving rotational setup errors were created, and the dose distribution in these CT sets were recalculated. The recalculated dosimetric parameters for the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR) were compared to the reference values, and the correlation coefficients between the dosimetric parameter differences and rotational setup errors were calculated. Only the pitch setup error was moderately correlated with CTV coverage (r ≥ 0.40) and strongly correlated with V45 for the bladder (r ≥ 0.91) and V40 for the rectum, small bowel and bone marrow (r ≥ 0.91). The maximum dosimetric difference in a single fraction and overall fractions was −1.59% and −0.69% in D98 for the CTV, 11.72% and 5.17% in V45 for the bladder and −8.03% and −4.68% in V40 for the rectum, respectively. In conclusion, rotational setup errors only slightly impact dose coverage during postoperative cervical cancer VMAT. However, the pitch setup error occasionally affected the doses received by the bladder or the rectum in the overall fraction when the error was systematic. Thus, rotational setup errors should be corrected by adjusting six-degree-of-freedom (DOF) couches to reduce dosimetric differences in the OARs.