| 周冲,任洪荣,卜祥兆,丁纪,阮晓博,张伟,李向阳,郭林,刘凌,殷海涛.胸上段食管癌无均整器容积弧形调强与固定野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2015,35(4):261-264 |
| 胸上段食管癌无均整器容积弧形调强与固定野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较 |
| Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulation arc radiotherapy with flattening filter-free beams with IMRT for upper thoracic esophageal cancer |
| 投稿时间：2014-10-07 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2015.04.006 |
| 中文关键词: 容积弧形调强 调强放疗 食管癌 剂量学 |
| 英文关键词:Volumetric modulated arc therapy Intensity-modulated radiotherapy Esophageal cancer Dosimetry |
| 基金项目:徐州市青年后备人才项目(2014005) |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | 周冲 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 任洪荣 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 卜祥兆 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 丁纪 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 阮晓博 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 张伟 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 李向阳 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 郭林 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 刘凌 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | | | 殷海涛 | 221007 徐州, 东南大学附属徐州市中心医院 | baixia1108@126.com |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3119 |
| 全文下载次数: 2562 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨在瓦里安TrueBeamTM直线加速器中使用无均整器出束容积弧形调强(RA-FFF)及常规固定野调强(IMRT)两种计划剂量学差异.方法 选择10例分期为cT2-3N0-1M0-1a胸上段食管癌患者定位CT资料,使用ECLIPSETM 10.0.4治疗计划系统分别设计RA-FFF、IMRT根治性放疗计划,处方剂量为60 Gy/30次,比较2种计划的剂量学参数和执行效率.结果 2种计划靶区适形度相似,差异无统计学意义;IMRT计划的均匀性指数高于RA-FFF计划(t=7.298,P=0.008);RA-FFF计划中肺组织的V20、V5低于IMRT计划(t=2.451、2.604,P<0.05).RA-FFF及IMRT两种计划制定时间分别为(5.3±1.4)、(3.5±1.7)h(t=2.585,P<0.05),机器总跳数分别为632±213及734±132(t=-1.287,P=0.084),治疗执行时间分别为(2.2±0.9)、(4.5±1.3)min(t=4.60,P<0.01).结论 与IMRT计划相比,RA-FFF在胸上段食管癌治疗中具有相似的靶区剂量分布,可更好地保护肺组织,计划制定时间较长但执行效率较高. |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between RapidArc with flattening filter-free Beams (RA-FFF) and static gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for upper thoracic esophageal cancer by means of Varian TrueBeamTM accelerator. Methods A total of 10 patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer staged cT2-3N0-1M0 were enrolled. RA-FFF and IMRT treatment plans with radical intent were generated by Varian EclipseTM TPS 10.0.4 for each patient. All plans were prescribed 60 Gy in 30 fractions. The RA-FFF plans were compared with IMRT in terms of dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency. Results Both of the two plans provided similar conformity index, while IMRT had a improved homogeneity index than that of RA-FFF(t=7.298, P=0.008). For the lung, the values of V20, V5 in RA-FFF plan was lower than that of IMRT plan(t=2.451, 2.604 P<0.05). The treatment planning time of RA-FFF plans were longer than that of IMRT plans[(5.3±1.4), (3.5±1.7) h, t=2.585,P<0.05]. The monitor units for RA-FFF and IMRT were 632±213 and 734±132(t=-1.287,P=0.084), respectively. The treatment time of RA-FFF and IMRT were 2.2±0.9 and 4.5±1.3, respectively(t=4.60, P<0.01). Conclusions For patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer, RA-FFF plan, compared with IMRT plan, has a similar target coverage and better dose sparing to the lungs. In addition, RA-FFF plan has fewer MUs, less treatment time and better treatment efficiency. |
| HTML 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|