摘要
目的 研究旋转容积调强技术与常规固定野九野调强技术在宫颈癌放疗中的运用,比较其剂量学分布及周围危及器宫的受照剂量,探讨宫颈癌放疗的最佳方案.方法 选择20例宫颈癌患者分为2组,每组10例,一组为宫颈癌未行手术患者(A组),给予根治性放疗,处方剂量GTV 56Gy,CTV 50 Gy;另一组为宫颈癌根治术后患者(B组),给予全盆淋巴结辅助放疗,处方剂量CTV50Gy.对2组患者分别进行容积旋转调强(VMAT)和固定野九野调强(IMRT)计划设计,分别比较2组中两种计划之间的剂量-体积直方图(DVH)、危及器官受照体积、靶区剂量的适形度指数(CI)、均匀度指数(HI)、最大受照剂量(PTV Dmax)、最小受照剂量(PTV Dmin)和平均受照剂量(PTV Dmean).结果 两种放疗技术分别在2组中靶区剂量学差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).在危及器官的保护上,两组中的VMAT计划组在小肠V20和左股骨头V20上有明显的优势,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 宫颈癌容积旋转调强与固定野九野调强计划两组剂量学相似,两组中的VMAT计划组对危及器官的保护略优于IMRT组,且VMAT计划组治疗时间短,提高了治疗精度和疗效.
Objective To compare the planning quality and volume of organ at risk (OAR) between volumetric-modulated arc therapyv (VMAT) and nine-field dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in radiotherapy for cervical cancer patients,explore the best way to cervical cancer radiotherapy,Methods Selected 20 patients with cervical cancer were divided into 2 groups,10 cases for each group.Cervical cancer patients with no surgery was performed for A group (group A),received the radical radiotherapy,prescription dose gross tumor volume (GTV) 56 Gy,clinical target volume (CTV) 50 Gy.Another group of patients with cervical cancer radical surgery (group B),giving the whole basin lymph node auxiliary radiation therapy,prescription dose CTV 50 Gy.Each cervical cancer patient received VMAT and IMRT program designs,the differences in dose volume histogram (DVH),irradiated volume of organ at risk (OAR),heterogeneity index (HI),conformity index (CI),maximum dose (PTVmax),minimum dose (PTVmin) and mean dose (PTV mean) were compared between two plans in 2 groups.Results Two kinds of radiation technology in target area dosimetry were not statistical difference between two groups (P 〉 0.05).In endanger organs on the protection of two groups of VMAT planning groups in the small intestine V20 and left femoral head V20 had obvious advantages with statistically significance (P 〈 0.05).Conclusions Two groups of dosimetry between VMAT and IMRT program design are similar in cervical cancer.Two groups of VMAT planning groups to protect endanger organ slightly better than that of IMRT group,but VMAT planning group shortens treatment time and improves the accuracy and efficacy of treatment.
出处
《中国医师杂志》
CAS
2015年第4期501-505,共5页
Journal of Chinese Physician