| Li Qixin,Yue Qi,Bai Penggang,Chen Kaiqiang,Zhang Xiuchun,Lin Shaojun,Qu Yiyan.Dosimetric comparison of three intensity-modulate radiation therapy treatment modules for nasopharyngeal carcinoma[J].Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection,2014,34(8):613-616 |
| Dosimetric comparison of three intensity-modulate radiation therapy treatment modules for nasopharyngeal carcinoma |
| Received:May 21, 2013 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2014.08.013 |
| KeyWords:Nasopharyngeal carcinoma Volumetric-modulated radiotherapy Helical tomotherapy Fixed field intensity-modulated radiation therapy Dosimetry |
| FundProject: |
| Author Name | Affiliation | E-mail | | Li Qixin | Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Tumor Hosptial, Fuzhou 350014, China | | | Yue Qi | 昆明医科大学第一附属医院放疗科 | | | Bai Penggang | Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Tumor Hosptial, Fuzhou 350014, China | | | Chen Kaiqiang | Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Tumor Hosptial, Fuzhou 350014, China | | | Zhang Xiuchun | Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Tumor Hosptial, Fuzhou 350014, China | tongzhangxiuchun@126.com | | Lin Shaojun | Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Tumor Hosptial, Fuzhou 350014, China | | | Qu Yiyan | Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Tumor Hosptial, Fuzhou 350014, China | |
|
| Hits: 3303 |
| Download times: 1983 |
| Abstract:: |
| Objective To compare the dosimetric differences of fixed field intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC) patients. Methods Eighteen NPC patients previously treated with VMAT were retrospectively included and re-planned using HT and IMRT (7 fields) techniques utilizing the same dose prescription and optimization objectives. The following parameters were compared across the three types of plans: homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), maximum dose (Dmax) and mean dose (Dmean) of targets; the Dmax and Dmean of organs at risk (OARs); the doses and volumes of volume of interest; the treatment delivery time and monitor units (MU). Results Clinically acceptable target coverage could be achieved by IMRT, VMAT and HT plans. The HT plans were the best yet IMRT plans were the worst in HI and CI of targets. IMRT imposed highest doses to OARs while HT deposited least doses to the spinal cord, brainstem and parotid. However, the VMAT plans displayed the lowest doses on optic nerves, chiasma and lens while highest doses were found in IMRT plans. The average delivery time per fraction of IMRT (8.0±0.5) min were more than that of HT (7.4±0.9) min and VMAT (3.9±0.1) min plans. The MUs of IMRT plans (711.4±78.7) were larger than that of VMAT plans (596.4±33.7). Conclusions Three types of plans can all achieve the clinical dosimetric demands, but HT has the best performance on CI and HI. VMAT is most efficient regarding the delivery time and total MUs. |
| HTML View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
