中华放射医学与防护杂志

周晓琳,范秋虹,钱建军,周钢,田野.乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强与三维适形野中野放疗的剂量学比较[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2011,31(6):675-679

乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强与三维适形野中野放疗的剂量学比较

Comparison of dosimetry between inversely optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy using the field-in-field after breast-conserving surgery

投稿时间：2011-03-13

DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2011.06.014

中文关键词: 乳腺癌保乳术后剂量学逆向调强放疗三维适形野中野

英文关键词:Breast cancer Breast-conserving surgery Dosimetry Inversely optimised IMRT 3D-CRT using field-in-field

基金项目:江苏省"十二五"临床医学重点学科资助

作者	单位
周晓琳	常州市第四人民医院放疗科
范秋虹	215004 苏州大学附属第二医院放疗科
钱建军	215004 苏州大学附属第二医院放疗科
周钢	215004 苏州大学附属第二医院放疗科
田野	215004 苏州大学附属第二医院放疗科

摘要点击次数: 3738

全文下载次数: 2211

中文摘要:

目的比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强(IMRT)与三维适形野中野瘤床同步加量(FIF)两种放疗技术的剂量学差异。方法选择9例左侧早期乳腺癌保乳术后患者,分别设计IMRT与FIF两组放疗计划,处方剂量为乳房靶区50.4 Gy,分28次,每次1.8 Gy;瘤床靶区61.6 Gy,分28次,每次2.2 Gy。比较两组计划的靶区适形度及危及器官受量,并比较两者的计划优化和治疗时间。结果 IMRT的全乳靶区适形度(CI)为1.82±0.16,低于FIF的2.21±0.15(t=2.08,P<0.05);瘤床靶区适形度为1.19±0.04,低于FIF的1.59±0.11(t=3.97,P<0.05)。两组计划危及器官同侧肺的V₂₀和心脏的V₃₀无明显差异。FIF对侧肺的Dmax和Dmean分别是(5.41±2.76)和(0.51±0.10) Gy, IMRT分别为(25.72±2.61)和(7.46±0.39) Gy(t=-22.44、-21.14,P<0.05)。对侧乳房的Dmax和Dmean,FIF为(8.50±5.61)和(0.46±0.11) Gy,IMRT为(27.73±4.29)和(6.38±0.48) Gy(t=-5.66、-14.83,P<0.05)。对于对侧肺和乳房的低剂量照射区V₅,FIF为(0.09±0.09)%和(0.45±0.45)%,低于IMRT的(84.66±3.06)%和(60.79±4.94)%(t=-28.19、-12.80,P<0.05)。在计划优化及治疗时间方面,FIF与IMRT优化时间分别为(61.57±0.89)min和(241.28±1.06)min,单次治疗时间分别为(16.14±1.42)min和(29.85±0.59) min(t=-32.35、-8.82,P<0.05)。结论 IMRT改善了靶区适形度,但是增加了对侧肺和对侧乳房的受照剂量。FIF在计划优化时间及治疗时间方面有优势。

英文摘要:

Objective To compare the dosimetry between inversely optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy using the field-in-field technique (FIF) for whole-breast radiotherapy with a boost to the tumor bed after breast-conserving surgery. Methods IMRT and FIF treatment plans were respectively performed and optimised for 9 patients with early stage left-breast cancer after breast-concerving surgery. The prescribed dose of breast was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, 1.8 Gy per fraction and that of tumor bed was 61.6 Gy in 28 fractions, 2.2 Gy per fraction. The conformity index, the dose and volume for OAR(organs at risks), time of planning and treatment for the two plans were compared. Results The conformity index(CI)for IMRT was improved compared with the FIF in breast [(1.82±0.16) vs.(2.21±0.15)] and tumor bed [(1.19±0.04) vs.(1.59±0.11), t=2.08, 3.97, P<0.05]. There was no difference for V₂₀ of ipsilateral lung and V₃₀ of heart between two plans. The Dmax and Dmean of the contralateral lung of FIF were (5.41±2.76) and (0.51±0.10) Gy, lower than those of IMRT [(25.72±2.61) and (7.46±0.39) Gy, t=-22.44,-21.14, P<0.05]. The Dmax and Dmean of the contralateral breast of FIF were (8.50±5.61) and (0.47±0.11) Gy, lower than those of IMRT [(27.73±4.30) and (6.38±0.48) Gy, t=-5.66,-14.83, P<0.05]. For FIF, the V₅ of the contralateral lung and breast were (0.09±0.09) % and (0.45±0.45) % , respectively, lower than those of IMRT, which were (84.66±3.06) % and (60.79±4.94)%(t=-28.19,-12.80, P<0.05). The time of optimised plan was (61.57±0.89)min for FIF and(241.28±1.06)min for IMRT (t=-32.35, P<0.05), and that of treatment were (16.14±1.42) min for FIF and (29.85±0.59)min for IMRT (t=-8.82, P<0.05). Conclusions For patients with early stage breast cancer after breast-concerving surgery,IMRT could improve the conformity index of target but increase the dose of contralateral lung and breast. However, FIF has advantage on the time of optimising plan and treatment.

HTML 查看全文查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器

关闭