首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

食管癌VMAT与IMRT的剂量学比较
引用本文:刘丽虹,王澜,韩春,张靖,田华,李晓宁. 食管癌VMAT与IMRT的剂量学比较[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2015, 24(3): 318-321. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2015.03.022
作者姓名:刘丽虹  王澜  韩春  张靖  田华  李晓宁
作者单位:050011 石家庄,河北医科大学第四医院放疗科
摘    要:目的 比较食管癌VMAT与静态IMRT的剂量学差异,探索VMAT的可行性。

关 键 词:食管肿瘤/容积调强弧形疗法  食管肿瘤/调强放射疗法  剂量学  γ通过率  

The application of volumetric modulated arc therapy in esophageal carcinoma
Liu Lihong,Wang Lan,Han Chun,Zhang Jing,Tian Hua,Li Xiaoning. The application of volumetric modulated arc therapy in esophageal carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2015, 24(3): 318-321. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2015.03.022
Authors:Liu Lihong  Wang Lan  Han Chun  Zhang Jing  Tian Hua  Li Xiaoning
Affiliation:Department of Radiation Oncology,Fourth Hospital,Hebei Medical University,Shijiazhuang 050011,China
Abstract:Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and static intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal carcinoma. Methods Thirty patients were selected in this study, including 5 cases in the cervical, 5 the lower thorax, 10 the upper thorax and 10 the middle thorax. VMAT plans with a single arc and IMRT plans with five fields designed for each patients. Planning target volume (PTV) were prescribed to 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Delta 4 was used to verifie the dosimetric of treatment plans. Using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-test to compare the dose distribution on planning and organs at risk (OAR). The monitor units and treatment time were also evaluated to measure the treatment efficiency. Results All the VMAT and IMRT plans can satisfy the clinical dosimetry requirements. VMAT had better conformal index for PTV than IMRT (P=0.008). VMAT was better than IMRT by reducing the Dmax of spinal cord (P=0.032),while the V30,V40 and Dmean of heart were significantly higher (P=0.041,0.012,0.002).For cervicals, the V5, V10, V15 and mean dose of lung were significant higher in VMAT than those in IMRT (P=0.002- 0.002,0.002). For uppers, the values of heart V30 and Dmean were significantly larger in VMAT than IMRT (P=0.030,0.026). However, the Dmax of spinal cord in VMAT was lower than IMRT (P=0.006). For middles, VMAT reduced V10, V15, V20 of lung (P=0.015,0.028,0.041). There were no significant differences between VMAT and IMRT in the lowers (P=0.262- 0.998). The 3 mm/3% γ pass rate was 92.75% for VMAT and 92.98% for IMRT (P=0.826). The average MU of VMAT (460.66 MU) was reduced by 11.84%compared with IMRT (522.55 MU)(P=0.001). The delivery time of VMAT (139.6 s)compared with IMRT (298.73 s) was reduced by an average of 53.27%(P=0.000). ConclusionsCompared with IMRT, VMAT improved the OARs dose sparing and the target CI with similar dose distribution to the target. VMAT required fewer MU, shorten the treatment time significantly. The implementation of Synergy is stable and reliable.
Keywords:Esophageal neoplasms/volumetric modulated arc therapy  Esophageal neoplasms/intensity-modulated radiotherapy  Dosimetry  γ pass rate
点击此处可从《中华放射肿瘤学杂志》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《中华放射肿瘤学杂志》下载免费的PDF全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号