A prospective trial of volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy in advanced head and neck cancer

AIM: To prospectively compare volumetric intensitymodulated arc therapy(VMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) in coverage of planning target volumes and avoidance of multiple organs at risk(OARs) in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy for advanced(stage Ⅲ or Ⅳ)squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with advanced tumors of the larynx, naso-, oroand hypopharynx were prospectively planned using IMRT(7 field) and VMAT using two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume(PTV) and OAR were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Dose-volume histograms(DVH) were utilized to obtain calculated doses to PTV and OAR, including parotids, cochlea,spinal cord, brainstem, anterior tongue, pituitary and brachial plexus. DVH's for all structures were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. In addition the planswere compared for dose conformity and homogeneity. The final treatment plan was chosen by the treating radiation oncologist. RESULTS: VMAT was chosen as the ultimate plan in 18 of 20 patients(90%) because the plans were thought to be otherwise clinically equivalent. The IMRT plan was chosen in 2 of 20 patients because the VMAT plan produced concentric irradiation of the cord which was not overcome even with an avoidance structure. For all patients, VMAT plans had a lower number of average monitor units on average(MU = 542.85) than IMRT plans(MU = 1612.58)(P < 0.001). Using the conformity index(CI), defined as the 95% isodose volume divided by the PTV, the IMRT plan was more conformal with a lower conformity index(CI = 1.61) than the VMAT plan(CI = 2.00)(P = 0.003). Dose homogeneity, as measured by average standard deviation of dose distribution over the PTV, was not different with VMAT(1.45 Gy) or IMRT(1.73 Gy)(P = 0.069). There were no differences in sparing organs at risk.CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, VMAT plans were chosen over IMRT 90% of the time. Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans used only one third of the MUs, had shorter treatment times, and similar sparing of OAR. Overall, VMAT provided similar dose homogeneity but less conformity in PTV irradiation compared to IMRT. This difference in conformity was not clinically significant.

Dosimetric Comparative Analysis of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Cervical Cancer

Objective:To carry out dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT)and intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT)in cervical cancer.Methods:50 postoperative cervical cancer patients were included in this study.The patients were admitted for treatment from January 2021 to January 2022.VMAT and IMRT plans were designed for each patient to analyze the dose distribution in the target area of the two treatment techniques.Results:Comparing the monitor unit for single treatment(638.21±116.21 MU)and time of single treatment(143.21±23.14 s)in the observation group and the monitor unit for single treatment(932.14±74.11 MU)and time of single treatment(223.14±17.26 s)in the control group,there was significant difference(P<0.05);there was also significant difference(P<0.05)between the normal tissue(bladder and rectum)of the observation group and that(bladder and rectum)of the control group.Conclusion:VMAT is more effective in cervical cancer,and it has a certain protective effect on normal tissues in patients and can reduce the radiation dose.

Evaluation of 3D-CRT and VMAT Radiotherapy Plans for Left Breast Cancer with Regional Lymph Nodes Irradiation

Introduction: Radiation therapy after breast surgery is an integral part of the treatment of early breast cancer. The goal of radiation therapy is to achieve the best possible coverage of the planning target volume (PTV), while reducing the dose to organs at risk (OARs) which are normal tissues whose sensitivity to irradiation could cause damage that can lead to modification of the treatment plan. In the last decade, radiation oncologist started to use the Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for irradiating the breast, in order to achieve better dose distribution and target dose to the PTV and OAR. The aim of this study is to compare 2 external radiotherapy techniques (VMAT vs 3D) for patients with node-positive left breast cancer. Patients and Methods: We randomly selected 10 cases of postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer in our hospital. The patients are all female, the average age was 45.4 years old, and the primary lesions are left breast. The ANOVA test was used to compare the mean difference between subgroups, and the p value Results: Dose volume histogram (DVH) was used to analyze each evaluation dose of clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs). Compared to 3DCRT plans, VMAT provided more uniform coverage to the breast and regional lymph nodes. The max point dose for tVMAT was lower on average (106.4% for VMAT versus 109% for 3DCRT). OAR sparing was improved with tVMAT, with a lower average V17Gy for the left lung (27.91% for VMAT versus 30.04% for 3DCRT, p and lower for V28Gy (13.75% for VMAT versus 22.34% for 3DCRT, p = 0.01). We also found a lower V35Gy for the heart on VMAT plan (p = 0.02). On the contrary, dose of contralateral breast was lower in 3DCRT than VMAT (0.59 Gy vs 3.65 Gy, p = 0.00). Conclusion: The both types of plans can meet the clinical dosimetry demands of postoperative radiotherapy for left breast cancer. The VMAT plan has a better conformity, but 3CDRT can provide a lower dose to the contralateral organs (breast and lung) to avoid the risk of secondary cancers.

Helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy:New therapeutic arms in the breast cancer radiotherapy

AIM To analyse clinical and dosimetric results of helical tomotherapy(HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) in complex adjuvant breast and nodes irradiation.METHODS Seventy-three patients were included(31 HT and 42 VMAT). Dose were 63.8 Gy(HT) and 63.2 Gy(VMAT) in the tumour bed, 52.2 Gy in the breast, 50.4 Gy in supraclavicular nodes(SCN) and internal mammary chain(IMC) with HT and 52.2 Gy and 49.3 Gy in IMC and SCN with VMAT in 29 fractions. Margins to particle tracking velocimetry were greater in the VMAT cohort(7 mm vs 5 mm).RESULTS For the HT cohort, the coverage of clinical target volumes was as follows: Tumour bed: 99.4% ± 2.4%; breast: 98.4% ± 4.3%; SCN: 99.5% ± 1.2%; IMC:96.5% ± 13.9%. For the VMAT cohort, the coverage was as follows: Tumour bed: 99.7% ± 0.5%, breast: 99.3% ± 0.7%; SCN: 99.6% ± 1.4%; IMC: 99.3% ± 3%. For ipsilateral lung, Dmean and V20 were 13.6 ± 1.2 Gy, 21.1% ± 5%(HT) and 13.6 ± 1.4 Gy, 20.1% ± 3.2%(VMAT). Dmean and V30 of the heart were 7.4 ± 1.4 Gy, 1% ± 1%(HT) and 10.3 ± 4.2 Gy, 2.5% ± 3.9%(VMAT). For controlateral breast Dmean was 3.6 ± 0.2 Gy(HT) and 4.6 ± 0.9 Gy(VMAT). Acute skin toxicity grade 3 was 5% in the two cohorts.CONCLUSION HT and VMAT in complex adjuvant breast irradiation allow a good coverage of target volumes with an acceptable acute tolerance. A longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact of low doses to healthy tissues.

Oral contrast agents lead to underestimation of dose calculation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for pelvic irradiation

Background:The effects of oral contrast agents(OCAs)on dosimetry have not been studied in detail.Therefore,this study aimed to examine the influence of OCAs on dose calculation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for rectal cancer.Methods:From 2008 to 2016,computed tomography(CT)images were obtained from 33 rectal cancer patients administered OCA with or without intravenous contrast agent(ICA)and 14 patients who received no contrast agent.CT numbers of organs at risk were recorded and converted to electronic densities.Volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were designed before and after the original densities were replaced with non-enhanced densities.Doses to the planned target volume(PTV)and organs at risk were compared between the plans.Results:OCA significantly increased the mean and maximum densities of the bowels,while the effects of ICA on these parameters depended on the blood supply of the organs.With OCA,the actual doses for PTV were significantly higher than planned and doses to the bowel increased significantly although moderately.However,the increase in the volume receiving a high-range doses was substantial the absolute change of intestine volume receiving≥52 Gy:1.46[0.05-3.99,cubic centimeter range:-6.74 to 128.12],the absolute change of colon volume receiving≥50 Gy:0.34[0.01-1.53 cc,range:-0.08 to 3.80 cc].Dose changes due to ICA were insignificant.Pearson correlation showed that dose changes were significantly correlated with a high intestinal volume within or near the PTV(ρ>0.5,P<0.05)and with the density of enhanced intestine(ρ>0.3,P<0.05).Conclusions:Contrast agents applied in simulation cause underestimation of doses in actual treatment.The overdose due to ICA was slight,while that due to OCA was moderate.The bowel volume receiving≥50Gy was dramatically increased when OCA within the bowel was absent.Physicians should be aware of these issues if the original plan is barely within clinical tolerance or if a considerable volume of enhanced intestine is within or near the PTV.

DICOM-RT Plan Complexity Verification for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between plan parameters verified with DICOM-RT and dosimetric results for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We investigated three treatment locations: prostate cancer (ten cases), maxillary sinus cancer (four cases), and malignant pleura mesothelioma (four cases) with treatment plans generated by a MonacoTM treatment planning system (TPS), and delivered with an Elekta SynergyTM linear accelerator. We calculated plan parameters, including gantry and multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, Monitor Units (MU), and millimeters of MLC motion per degree of gantry rotation (mm/degree), and performed quality assurance (QA) with a DICOM-RT plan verification system. We measured the VMAT dose with a two-dimensional diode array detector. The average gamma passing rate with percent dose acceptance criteria and distance to agreement criteria of 2 mm and 2% (2 mm/2%) were 97.4%, 97.8% and 92.0% for prostate cancer, maxillary sinus cancer, and malignant pleural mesothelioma, respectively. The mean 95th percentile value for DICOM-calculated mm/degree was 4.0, 5.2, and 11.1 for prostate cancer, maxillary sinus cancer, and malignant pleural mesothelioma, respectively. The gamma passing rate showed a correlation with calculated mm/degree, with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.60. Higher calculated mm/degree values led to increased dosimetric errors. We conclude that dose distribution calculated by a TPS is more reliable at smaller mm/degree.

Predicting Delivery Error Using a DICOM-RT Plan for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

The purpose of this study was to investigate the prediction of mechanical error using DICOM-RT plan parameters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We created plans for gantry rotation arcs of 360° and 180° (full-arc and half-arc VMAT) for six maxillary sinus cancer cases using a Monaco treatment planning system, and delivered the doses with a linear accelerator. We calculated DICOM-RT plan parameters, including gantry, multileaf collimator (MLC) positions and Monitor Units (MU). We compared plans with regard to gantry angle per MU (degrees/MU) and MLC travel per MU (mm/MU) for each segment. Calculated gantry angle/MLC position speeds and errors were evaluated by comparison with the log file. On average, the half-arc VMAT plan resulted in 47% and 35% fewer degrees/MU and mm/MU than the full-arc VMAT plan, respectively. The root mean square (r.m.s.) gantry and MLC speeds showed a linear relationship with calculated degrees/MU and mm/MU, with coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.86 and 0.72, respectively. The r.m.s. gantry angle and MLC position errors showed a linear relationship with calculated degrees/MU and mm/MU with R2 of 0.63 and 0.76, respectively. Deviations from plan parameters were related to mechanical error for VMAT, and provided quantitative information without the need for VMAT delivery. These parameters can be used in the selection of treatment planning.

晚期鼻咽癌RapidArc与固定野调强放疗的比较研究

目的:近年RapidArc的临床应用已引起越来越多的关注,本研究比较RapidArc与固定野调强放射治疗(IMRT)两种放疗技术在晚期鼻咽癌治疗计划中的差异。方法:随机选取10例晚期鼻咽癌患者,采用RapidArc与IMRT两种技术进行计划设计与剂量验证,比较计划的靶区剂量、危及器官与正常组织剂量、机器跳数、治疗时间与剂量验证结果。结果:两种计划的剂量分布基本一致,均能提供足够的靶区剂量。RapidArc的PTVnx最小剂量,PTVnd、PTV60、喉、腮腺的平均剂量低于IMRT,PTV60的HI值高于IMRT,机器跳数比IMRT减少约58%,治疗时间减少约70%。以3%/3mm为界,RapidArc验证的γ指数通过率为(98.75±0.50)%,IMRT的通过率为(98.86±0.67)%。结论:两种放疗技术均能够满足临床治疗需要,剂量验证结果能够较好的符合计划计算结果。RapidArc比IMRT有着更多的优势,不仅可以减少机器跳数,缩短治疗时间,而且可以减少喉、腮腺的受照剂量。

MONACO放疗计划系统VMAT计划照射野Arc数目对治疗计划影响的比较分析

目的评价MONACO治疗计划系统中VMAT计划照射野不同Arc数目对剂量分布、计划执行以及剂量验证通过率的影响。方法对接受治疗32例宫颈癌患者进行了回顾性分析,原执行治疗的计划为设置两个射野,每个射野1个Arc(1 Arc Per Beam,1APB),在原治疗计划轮廓勾画和参数约束相同的情况下,将照射野参数改为一个射野,每个射野2个Arc(2 Arc Per Beam,2APB)。计划在保证靶区100%体积接受95%处方剂量的标准下,对靶区的适形指数、均匀指数,危及器官的受照剂量,治疗计划的机器跳数和控制点数以及治疗计划的执行时间和剂量验证通过率进行评估。结果两种计划靶区的适形指数和均匀指数均值相近,危及器官受照剂量均值相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与1APB计划相比,2APB计划的机器跳数和控制点数明显减少(P<0.05);在计划执行方面,2APB计划比1APB计划的实施时间明显缩短(P<0.05);而在两种计划的剂量输出验证方面,剂量通过率相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种治疗计划的剂量学差异相近,均能满足临床要求,但是2APB计划比1APB计划的执行效率有大幅提升,可在减少治疗机损耗的基础上提升了整体工作效率。

CRT+ARC技术在肺癌“T”形靶区患者放射治疗中的剂量学研究

目的:探讨适形放疗(CRT)+容积旋转调强(ARC)在肺癌"T"形靶区放疗计划中的剂量学特点。方法:使用瓦里安计划系统(Eclipse 10.0)对随机选取的15例已行固定野调强放射治疗(FF-IMRT)治疗的肺癌"T"形靶区的患者,采用CRT和ARC设计CRT+ARC计划,采用CRT和FF-IMRT设计CRT+IMRT计划。在满足相同处方剂量要求的情况下,评价和比较两种治疗计划中计划靶区(PTV)的最小剂量(D_(min))、最大剂量(D_(max))、中位剂量、适形度指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)和危及器官受量(正常肺的V_5、V_(10)、V_(13)、V_(20)、V_(30)和平均剂量,脊髓D_(max),心脏V_(20)、V_(30)、V_(40)、V_(45)和平均剂量,食管V50、D_(max)),并比较两种治疗计划正常组织B-P受量和总机器跳数。结果:(1)PTV剂量学指标。CRT+ARC计划与CRT+IMRT计划相比,靶区中位值和V107略有升高,具有统计学意义(P=0.000、0.003),其它剂量学指标(PTV的D_(min)、D_(max)、CI、HI)均无统计学意义。(2)危及器官受量。CRT+ARC计划与CRT+IMRT计划相比,脊髓D_(max)有所降低,且具有统计学意义(P=0.000),正常肺的V13有所升高,但不具有统计学意义,正常肺的V_5、V_(10)、V_(20)、V_(30)和平均剂量有所降低,且V_(20)、V_(30)和平均值具有统计学意义(P=0.000、0.020、0.006);其它危及器官受量,食管V50和D_(max),心脏V_(20)、V_(30)、V_(40)、V_(45)和平均剂量,均无统计学意义。(3)正常组织B-P受量。CRT+ARC计划与CRT+IMRT计划相比,V10略有增高,且具有统计学意义(P=0.030);V_(15)、V_(20)、V_(25)和V_(30)有所降低,且具有统计学意义(P=0.000、0.000、0.000、0.001);其它剂量学指标(V_5、V_(35)、V_(40)、V_(45)和V_(50))无统计学意义。(4)机器跳数。CRT+ARC计划和CRT+IMRT计划单次计划中各射野机器跳数累加之和分别为460±59、1 561±180,两者有显著统计学意义(P=0.000)。结论:对于局部晚期或晚期具有"T"形(或"Y"形)靶区的肺癌患者,CRT+ARC计划比CRT+IMRT计划,在靶区剂量分布、保护肺和脊髓方面表现出了优势,明显减少了机器跳数,且肺和正常组织的低剂量受照体积受量未增加,还有一定程度的降低,这对于CRT+ARC技术在临床上应用,具有重要的指导意义。

解剖结构变化对鼻咽癌IMRT和RapidArc计划剂量分布影响大小的比较

目的:比较鼻咽癌放疗中患者解剖结构改变对IMRT和RapidA rc计划剂量影响的大小。方法:选取鼻咽癌患者6例,分别设计IMRT和RapidA rc计划。在疗程的第五周再次行CT扫描,在第五周CT图像上重新勾画靶区和危及器官。分别将IMRT和RapidA rc计划移植到第五周CT图像上,保持所有参数不变,重新计算剂量分布,并与原计划的剂量分布进行比较。结果:两种计划PGTVnx和PTV1的最大剂量、最小剂量、平均剂量、两腮腺的平均剂量的变化量均无明显差异,脑干、脊髓的最大剂量变化量两种计划存在明显差异:第五周IMRT计划脑干的最大剂量较原计划增加了(2.98±2.53)Gy,RapidA rc计划只增加了(1.16±1.39)Gy;第五周IMRT计划脊髓的最大剂量较原计划增加了(4.72±2.41)Gy,RapidA rc计划只增加了(1.67±1.20)Gy,两者均有统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论:放疗过程中患者解剖结构的变化会导致靶区和危及器官剂量分布较原计划产生一定变化,相比IMRT计划而言,RapidA rc计划的剂量分布受患者解剖结构变化的影响较小。在鼻咽癌放疗中采用RapidA rc技术可减少脑干、脊髓随患者解剖结构变化带来的剂量偏差,提高剂量传递的准确性。

Complex Target Volume Delineation and Treatment Planning in Radiotherapy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM)

Introduction: Radiotherapy alone or combined with surgery and/or chemotherapy is being investigated in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). This study aimed to simulate a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatment of a patient with MPM. Materials and Methods: CT images from a patient with intact lungs were imported via DICOM into the Pinnacle3 treatment planning (TP) system (TPS) and used as a model for MPM to delineate organs at risk (OAR) and both clinical and planning target volumes (CTV and PTV) with a margin of 5 mm. Elekta Synergy with 6 MV photons and 80 leafs MLCi2 was employed. VMAT plans were generated using two coplanar arcs with gantry rotation angles of 178° - 182°, the collimator angles of each arc were set to 90°, Octavius® 4D 729 was employed for quality assurance while the calculated and measured doses were compared using VeriSoft. Results: A TP was achieved. The Gamma volume analysis with criteria of 3 mm distance to agreement and 3% dose difference yielded the gamma passing rate = 99.9%. The reference isodose was 42.75 Gy with the coverage constraints for the PTV D95 and V95 = 95.0% of 45 Gy. The remaining dosimetric parameters met the recommendations from the clinically acceptable guidelines for the radiotherapy of MPM. Conclusion: Using well-defined TV and VMAT, a consistent TP compared to similar ones from publications was achieved. We obtained a high agreement between the 3D dose reconstructed and the dose calculated.

Dosimetric comparison of tomotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for children with neuroblastoma

Importance:Irradiation treatment for pediatric patients with neuroblastoma represents a major challenge due to the pediatric dose limits for critical structures and the necessity of sufficient dose coverage of the clinical target volume for local control.Objective:To investigate dosimetric differences between tomotherapy(TOMO)and volumetric-modulated arc therapy(VMAT)as retroperitoneal radiotherapy for children with neuroblastoma.Methods:Eight patients who received retroperitoneal radiotherapy for neuroblastoma were selected for comparison of TOMO and VMAT treatment plans.The D min,D max,D mean,D 95,D 2,and D 98 of planning target volume(PTV),conformity index(CI),heterogeneity index(HI),and organs at risk(OARs)parameters were compared.Delivery machine unit(MU)and image-guide radiotherapy solution results were also compared.Results:All patients received a cumulative dose of 19.5 Gy to the PTV.VMAT showed higher CI(0.93±0.02),compared with TOMO(0.87±0.03,P<0.001).Notably,the average PTV HI was significantly better using TOMO(1.05±0.01)than VMAT(1.08±0.02,P=0.003).Compared with VMAT,the D min,D 95,and D 98 all exhibited increases in TOMO;D max variation was less than 1%in TOMO.The D 0.1cc for the spinal cord and D 2cc for the small intestine were better in TOMO in terms of OARs.However,TOMO had more MUs and required a longer delivery time.Interpretation:Both planning techniques are capable of producing high-quality treatment plans.TOMO is superior for PTV coverage,but inferior for CI.TOMO requires extra treatment time;its cost is greater than the cost of VMAT.

基于美国医学物理学家协会TG119报告的TaiChi加速器质量控制体系建立研究

目的:依据美国医学物理学家协会(AAPM)TG119号报告测试方法和项目对TaiChi加速器在RayStation治疗计划系统(简称RayStation系统)中的建模数据模型进行测试评估。方法:在治疗计划系统中按AAPM TG119号报告要求设计模拟多靶区、前列腺靶区、头颈靶区、容易型C形靶区计划和困难型C形靶区计划等不同临床情况测试病例的调强放射治疗(IMRT)和容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)计划,测量两种计划中点剂量和面积量偏差,并将测试结果与AAPM TG119报告中推荐的标准进行对比分析。使用IBA CC13电离室和ArcCHECK矩阵电离室分别对点剂量和面剂量进行验证,评估标准为3%/3mm的γ通过率。采用置信度评判测量剂量与计算剂量的一致性。结果:测试病例计划剂量目标、点剂量偏差及面剂量分布准确性均满足报告要求:测试病例IMRT和VMAT计划的靶区高剂量点平均剂量偏差分别为(0.39±1.02)%和(1.27±0.64)%,置信度分别为2.39%和2.52%。IMRT和VMAT计划的危及器官(OAR)低剂量点平均剂量偏差分别为(0.53±1.73)%和(0.88±1.11)%,置信度分别为3.92%和3.06%。IMRT和VMAT计划3%/3mm标准下的平均γ通过率分别为(99.52±0.366)%和(99.86±0.136)%,置信度分别为1.196%和0.406%。结论:TaiChi加速器性能和Raystation系统6MV FFF模型拟合精度满足AAPM TG119号报告标准,依据此测试结果建立后续设备和患者质控的标准,并为后续加速器性能的改进提供了参考。

容积弧形调强放疗与静态调强放疗在宫颈癌根治性放疗中的剂量学分析

目的 研究观察容积弧形调强放疗与静态调强放疗在宫颈癌根治性放疗中的剂量学。方法 目的选取泰兴市人民医院2018年1月—2023年12月收治的60例宫颈癌患者,根据治疗方法不同分组,每组30例,观察组进行容积弧形调强放疗,对照组进行静态调强放疗。比较二者靶区和危及器官的剂量分布、总机器跳数和有效治疗时间。结果 观察组患者临床靶体积-计划靶体积及临床靶体积-计划靶体积的D2%、D95%、CI的受照剂量均高于对照组,而HI、D98%指标低于对照组患者;其危及器官(小肠、脊髓、直肠、股骨头)Dmean、V40及D2%的受照剂量均少于对照组患者,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。观察组患者的有效治疗时间(82.35±6.34)d及总机器跳数518.34±22.33均少于对照组患者的(342.72±10.62)d及635.52±42.52,差异有统计学意义(t=115.301、13.363,P均<0.05)。结论 两种放疗方式均可达到剂量学要求,但相较于静态调强放疗,容积弧形调强放疗法计划靶区均匀性、适形度更佳,危及器官的剂量更少。

容积旋转调强与调强放疗在宫颈癌放疗中的应用及剂量学、安全性研究

目的:探究容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)与调强放疗(IMRT)在宫颈癌根治术后放疗中的应用及剂量学、安全性。方法:选取宫颈癌根治后且拟行放疗的患者60例,根据随机数字表法将其分为VMAT组(30例)和IMRT组(30例),分别给予VMAT治疗与IMRT治疗,对比两组机器跳数、治疗计划执行时间、靶区适形度(CI)和均匀性指数(HI)、危及器官的剂量差异及不良反应等。结果:VMAT组在计划控制点多于IMRT组的情况下,其治疗时间仍短于IMRT组。通过Delta验证,VAMT组患者的3%/3 mm和4%/4 mmγ通过率低于IMRT组(均P<0.05)。VAMT组计划的CI记录与IMRT组比较无统计学差异(P>0.05),但与IMRT组相比,VAMT组的HI更接近于1,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。VAMT组直肠的V_(30)、V_(40)、V_(50)低于IMRT组,VAMT组对骨盆、膀胱的V_(20)、V_(30)、V_(40)低于IMRT组(均P<0.05);VAMT组和IMRT组发生胃肠道反应患者分别有9例(30.00%)、14例(46.67%);VAMT组和IMRT组发生膀胱反应的患者分别有3例(10.00%)、5例(16.67%),两组胃肠道、膀胱反应发生率比较均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。两组疗效及随访期内复发或转移情况对比均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。结论:在宫颈癌根治术后放疗时,VMAT治疗可时间缩短,且治疗效率及剂量学参数优于IMRT,可有效保护骨盆、直肠和膀胱,安全性好。

直肠癌不同放疗技术下肛门括约肌及其亚结构的剂量学比较

目的:比较在直肠癌新辅助放疗中容积旋转调强放疗(volume modulated arc therapy,VMAT)和调强放疗(intensity modulated radiation therapy,IMRT)对肛门括约肌(anal sphincter,AS)及其亚结构的剂量学影响,为患者选择放疗技术提供依据。方法:选取50例接受新辅助放疗的直肠癌患者,在患者的CT图像上分别设计共面双全弧VMAT和共面7野均分IMRT 2种放疗计划,在保证靶区和主要危及器官受照剂量都达标且满足临床要求的前提下,增加AS及其亚结构作为危及器官进行剂量学评估。通过剂量体积直方图统计AS及其亚结构的绝对剂量参数和相对剂量参数。采用IBM SPSS 22.0软件进行统计学分析。结果:VMAT计划与IMRT计划比较,AS及其亚结构的相对剂量参数V_(20)、V_(30)、V_(40)较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),V_(5)和V_(10)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。VMAT计划的绝对剂量参数D_(mean)较低,其D_(2%)比IMRT计划的D_(2%)略高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),二者的D_(98%)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:在直肠癌放疗中,VMAT整体上较IMRT能更好地为AS及其亚结构提供保护,从剂量学方面减少AS及其亚结构损伤。

AAPM TG119在调强放射治疗技术和容积旋转调强技术中的应用

目的通过AAPM TG119报告中的测试病例评估Monaco系统调强放射治疗(IMRT)技术和容积旋转调强(VMAT)技术的准确性。方法采用AAPM TG119报告提供的测试病例,在Monaco治疗系统中依照AAPM TG119报告中处方剂量和计划目标要求设计7或9个野的IMRT计划和单弧或双弧的VMAT计划,采用IBA MatriXX和Compass进行剂量验证,并将计划结果与AAPM TG119报告中多中心测试的结果对比。结果IMRT和VMAT计划在系统中的剂量指标均达到了AAPM TG119报告中的要求。IMRT计划γ通过率(3%/2 mm)为(97.85±1.2)%,VMAT计划的γ通过率(3%/2 mm)为(98.74±1.3)%。结论Monaco系统提供的IMRT技术和VMAT技术能够设计出与AAPM TG119为标准的IMRT计划质量相当的计划。

混合放疗技术在全脑放疗中的应用

目的比较混合放射治疗技术与调强放射治疗(Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy,IMRT)、容积调强放射治疗(Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy,VMAT)、三维适形放射治疗(Three dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy,3DCRT)在全脑放疗中的剂量学差异,研究混合放疗技术在全脑放疗的可行性。方法选取25例需要全脑放疗的患者为研究对象,分别设计3DCRT计划、基于3DCRT、IMRT技术的混合计划(Hybrid-IMRT)、基于3DCRT、VMAT技术的混合计划(Hybrid-VMAT)、IMRT计划、VMAT计划。Hybrid-IMRT计划与IMRT计划、Hybrid-VMAT计划与VMAT计划均采用相同的优化参数,2个混合计划3DCRT提供60%的处方剂量(2400 cGy/20 F),IMRT或VMAT部分提供剩余40%的处方剂量(1600 cGy/20 F)。比较5组计划的靶区均匀性指数、适形度指数、靶区最大剂量、机器跳数、危及器官(晶体、眼球、视神经、视交叉、脑干)的最大剂量。结果5种计划各项指标均满足临床需求。Hybrid-IMRT、Hybrid-VMAT计划靶区均匀度、靶区剂量最大点和晶体、视交叉、脑干的受量优于IMRT、VMAT计划,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);HybridIMRT、Hybrid-VMAT计划靶区适形度和眼球受量相对IMRT、VMAT计划差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Hybrid-IMRT、Hybrid-VMAT计划的机器跳数分别比IMRT、VMAT计划减少60%和10%(P<0.05)。结论Hybrid-IMRT、Hybrid-VMAT计划的各项参数均满足临床治疗要求,其靶区均匀度更好,治疗时间更短,对距离靶区较远和靶区内部的危及器官保护更好,因此混合放射治疗技术可以应用于全脑放疗中。

调强放疗与容积弧形调强放疗技术对乳腺癌患者分次内位移误差的影响研究

目的比较保乳术后乳腺癌患者在应用调强放疗(Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy,IMRT)与容积弧形调强放疗(Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy,VMAT)技术中的分次内位移误差大小,并研究体位固定时增加腹部热塑膜能否减少分次内位移误差。方法选取2022年10月至2023年3月乳腺癌保乳术后接受放射治疗的60例女性患者为研究对象,按照治疗技术不同将其随机分为IMRT组(n=30)和VMAT组(n=30);在2组中各随机选取15例患者在体位固定时增加腹部热塑膜,按照固定附件是否采用腹部热塑膜分为常规组和腹膜组;以计划靶区为主要配准区域,应用锥形束CT灰度配准算法分别比较IMRT组与VMAT组、常规组与腹膜组的分次内位移误差大小。结果经独立样本t检验,VMAT组的治疗时长显著小于IMRT组[(4.17±0.86)min vs.(9.69±1.13)min],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);经Wilcoxon秩和检验,VMAT组的患者在左右(x)、头脚(y)、前后(z)方向分次内位移误差均小于IMRT组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。经独立样本t检验,常规组的治疗时长与腹膜组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);经Wilcoxon秩和检验,腹膜组患者在x、y方向分次内位移误差小于常规组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),在z方向的差异则无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论保乳术后乳腺癌患者使用VMAT相比于IMRT,患者的分次内位移误差更小,在体位固定环节增加腹部热塑膜可减少患者x和y方向的分次内位移误差。