Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the dose distribution and dose volume histogram (DVH) of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) among conventional radiation therapy (CR), three-...Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the dose distribution and dose volume histogram (DVH) of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) among conventional radiation therapy (CR), three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), two-step intensity-modulated radiation therapy (TS-IMRT) and direct machine parameter optimization intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DMPO-IMRT) after breast-conserving surgery. Methods: For each of 20 randomly chosen patients, 4 plans were designed using 4 irradiation techniques. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy/2 Gy/25 f, 95% of the planning target volume received this dose. The cumulated DVHs and 3D dose distributions of CR, 3DCRT, TS-IMRT and DMPO-IMRT plans were compared. Results: For the homogeneity indices, no statistically significant difference was observed among CR, 3DCRT, TS-IMRT and DMPO-IMRT while the difference of the conformality indices were statistically significant. With regard to the organs at risk, IMRT and 3DCRT showed a significantly fewer exposure dose to the ipsilateral lung than CR in the high-dose area while in the low-dose area, IMRT demonstrated a significant increase of exposure dose to ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast compared with 3DCRT and CR. In addition, the monitor units (MUs) for DMPO-IMRT were approximately 26% more than those of TS-IMRT and the segments of the former were approximately 24% less than those of the latter. Conclusion: Compared with CR, 3DCRT and IMRT improved the homogeneity and conformity of PTV, reduced the irradiated volume of OARs in high dose area but IMRT increased the irradiated volume of OARs in low dose area. DMPO-IMRT plan has fewer delivery time but more MUs than TS-IMRT.展开更多
文摘Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the dose distribution and dose volume histogram (DVH) of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) among conventional radiation therapy (CR), three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), two-step intensity-modulated radiation therapy (TS-IMRT) and direct machine parameter optimization intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DMPO-IMRT) after breast-conserving surgery. Methods: For each of 20 randomly chosen patients, 4 plans were designed using 4 irradiation techniques. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy/2 Gy/25 f, 95% of the planning target volume received this dose. The cumulated DVHs and 3D dose distributions of CR, 3DCRT, TS-IMRT and DMPO-IMRT plans were compared. Results: For the homogeneity indices, no statistically significant difference was observed among CR, 3DCRT, TS-IMRT and DMPO-IMRT while the difference of the conformality indices were statistically significant. With regard to the organs at risk, IMRT and 3DCRT showed a significantly fewer exposure dose to the ipsilateral lung than CR in the high-dose area while in the low-dose area, IMRT demonstrated a significant increase of exposure dose to ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast compared with 3DCRT and CR. In addition, the monitor units (MUs) for DMPO-IMRT were approximately 26% more than those of TS-IMRT and the segments of the former were approximately 24% less than those of the latter. Conclusion: Compared with CR, 3DCRT and IMRT improved the homogeneity and conformity of PTV, reduced the irradiated volume of OARs in high dose area but IMRT increased the irradiated volume of OARs in low dose area. DMPO-IMRT plan has fewer delivery time but more MUs than TS-IMRT.
