| LIU Xiang-yu,LIU Xian-feng,HE Ya-nan,et al.Comparison of RapidArc plans and fixed field intensity modulated radiotherapy planning in cervical cancer radiotherapy[J].Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection,2011,31(3):326-328 |
| Comparison of RapidArc plans and fixed field intensity modulated radiotherapy planning in cervical cancer radiotherapy |
| Received:November 09, 2010 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2011.03.019 |
| KeyWords:Cervical neoplasms Radiotherapy Treatment planning RapidArc Intensity modulated radiotherapy |
| FundProject: |
| Author Name | Affiliation | | LIU Xiang-yu | Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing 400030, China | | LIU Xian-feng | Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing 400030, China | | HE Ya-nan | Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing 400030, China | | YIN Wen-juan | Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing 400030, China | | WU Yong-zhong | Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing 400030, China |
|
| Hits: 4013 |
| Download times: 2778 |
| Abstract:: |
| 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 View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
