| 刘翔宇,柳先锋,何亚男,尹文娟,吴永忠.宫颈癌放疗中的快速旋转调强计划和调强计划比较[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2011,31(3):326-328 |
| 宫颈癌放疗中的快速旋转调强计划和调强计划比较 |
| Comparison of RapidArc plans and fixed field intensity modulated radiotherapy planning in cervical cancer radiotherapy |
| 投稿时间：2010-11-09 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2011.03.019 |
| 中文关键词: 宫颈肿瘤 放射疗法 治疗计划 快速旋转调强 调强放疗 |
| 英文关键词:Cervical neoplasms Radiotherapy Treatment planning RapidArc Intensity modulated radiotherapy |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3210 |
| 全文下载次数: 2426 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨快速旋转调强(RapidArc)计划和固定野调强计划(IMRT)的优劣。方法 选择10例宫颈癌病例,在Eclipse 8.6计划系统上分别对其进行单弧、双弧及三弧RapidArc和固定野调强放疗计划设计,依次分别用Arc 1、Arc 2、Arc 3和IMRT表示。比较4者的计划制作及治疗时间、靶区及危及器官剂量分布差异。结果 10例病例的Arc 1、Arc 2、Arc 3和IMRT计划设计时间平均值分别为112、131、154和46 min,在瓦里安IX加速器上的治疗时间平均值分别为2.15、3.32、4.48和6.95 min,平均剂量分别为48.99、49.40、49.51和48.65 Gy,靶区均匀指数分别为1.11、1.07、1.06和1.12,靶区适形指数分别为0.73、0.87、0.87和0.79。IMRT计划的直肠、膀胱和小肠等危及器官受量最小,4种计划的股骨颈受量相似。结论 RapidArc计划在靶区剂量分布、均匀度、适形度以及治疗时间方面占优势,IMRT计划在计划的剂量计算时间和危及器官的保护方面占优势。总体临床应用上RapidArc计划优于IMRT计划。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To explore the advantages and disadvantages between the RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan (IMRT). Methods Ten cases of cervical cancer, aged 55 (36-70), who were to receive post-operative radiotherapy were selected randomly. Single arc (Arc 1), two arcs (Arc 2), and three arc (Arc 3) RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan were designed respectively in the Eclipse 8.6 planning system. The designing, treatment time, target area, and dose distribution of organs at risk by these 4 planning techniques were compared. Results The values of average planned treatment time by the Arc 1, Arc 2, and Arc 3 ten cases was 98, 155, 185, and 46 min, respectively. The values of average treatment time in the Varian IX accelerator were 2.15, 3.32, 4.48, and 6.95 min, respectively. The average mean doses were (48.99±1.08), (49.40±0.51), (49.51±0.62), and (48.65±0.92)Gy, respectively. The values of homogeneity index (HI) of target were 1.11±0.07, 1.07±0.02, 1.06±0.02, and 1.12±0.05, respectively. The values of conformal index (CI) of target were 0.73±0.13, 0.87±0.06, 0.87±0.06, and 0.79±0.06, respectively. The doses at rectum, bladder, and small intestine calculated by IMRT plan were the lowest, and the doses at the femoral neck calculated by these 4 plans were similar. Conclusions The RapidArc plan is superior in dose distribution at target, HI, CI, and treatment time to IMRT, but IMRT plan is superior to RapidArc in planned dose calculation time and protection of organs at risk. However, in general, the RapidArc plan is better in clinical application than IMRT plan. |
| HTML 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|