Objective： The aim of the work was to compare the dosimetric results that were obtained by using two treatment planning systems （TPS） Siemens KonRad version 2.2.23, Elekta XiO version 4.4 to perform a simultaneous ...Objective： The aim of the work was to compare the dosimetric results that were obtained by using two treatment planning systems （TPS） Siemens KonRad version 2.2.23, Elekta XiO version 4.4 to perform a simultaneous integrated boost （SIB） for head and neck and central nervous system （CNS） cases in paediatric patients. Methods： The CT scan data for five paediatric patients, with head and neck and CNS tumors, were transferred into both of the TPSs. Clinical step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy （IMRT） treatment plans were designed using 6 MV photon beam for delivery on a Siemens Oncor Accelerator with multileaf collimator MLC （82 leaf）. Plans were optimized to achieve the same clinical objectives using the same beam energy, number and direction of beams. The analysis was based on isodose distributions, the dose volume histogram （DVH） for planning target volume （PTV） and the relevant organs at risk （OARs） as well as volume receiving 2 Gy and 5 Gy, also total number of segments, MU/segment, and the number of MU/cGy had been investigated. Treatment delivery time and conformation number were two other parameters in this study. Results： The segmentation using KonRad was more efficient, resulting in fewer segments （reduction between 13.2% and 48.3%）, fewer M Us （reduction between 10.7% and 33%） and that reflected on treatment delivery times to be shorter by up to 8 rain or 46%. In most of the cases KonRad had the highest volume receiving in excess of 2 and 5 Gy, and XiO showed the lowest. Also KonRad achieved slightly better conformality （0.76 ± 0.054） than XiO （0.73 ± 0.05） while XiO presented a higher modulation factor value （3.3 MU/cGy） than KonRad （2.4 MU/cGy）. Conclusion： The KonRad treatment planning system was found to be superior to the XiO treatment planning system. This is true for the possible increase of radiation-induced secondary malignancies as well as for the local control.展开更多
目的:通过总结比较Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统对宫颈癌调强放疗剂量验证的结果,分析评价宫颈癌调强放疗在临床应用上剂量的准确性。方法:分别用固体水模和二维电离室矩阵Mapcheck、FC65-G指形电离室在定位螺旋CT上进行扫描,断层数据...目的:通过总结比较Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统对宫颈癌调强放疗剂量验证的结果,分析评价宫颈癌调强放疗在临床应用上剂量的准确性。方法:分别用固体水模和二维电离室矩阵Mapcheck、FC65-G指形电离室在定位螺旋CT上进行扫描,断层数据通过网络传输到Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统中建立验证模体。选取2013年1月至5月在本院24例宫颈癌调强治疗患者,在两个TPS(Treatment Planning Systems)上将宫颈癌调强放疗计划移植到模体上,用IBA公司的DOSE1、FC65-G指形电离室模体和Nuclear公司的二维电离室矩阵Mapcheck模体在加速器下进行点剂量和面剂量的采集。结果:Eclipse系统的12位患者随机选取24个照射野3 mm 3%面剂量的γ通过率均值为98.8%,Xio系统的12位患者随机选取24个照射野3mm3%面剂量γ通过率均值为97.7%,二者比较差别有统计学意义(P<0.01)。Eclipse系统的12位患者84个照射野点剂量的误差的均值为1.2417%,Xio系统的12位患者84个照射野点剂量的误差均值为2.4892%,二者比较差别具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统都可以应用于宫颈癌临床调强放疗,但Eclipse系统的准确性优于Xio系统。展开更多
文摘目的 :通过比较Xio和Oncentra MasterPlan 2个治疗计划系统调强放疗剂量验证的结果,评价它们应用于临床的准确性。方法:用IBA二维电离室矩阵MatriXX分别采集Xio和Oncentra MasterPlan系统的鼻咽癌调强照射野数据,并用IBA Omnipro I’mRT1.6软件分析处理。结果:Xio系统62个照射野3 mm 3%通过率均值为95.4%,3 mm 5%为98.4%;Oncentra MasterPlan系统75个照射野3 mm 3%通过率均值为92.8%,3 mm 5%为95.8%。二者差别具有统计学意义。结论:2个治疗计划系统都可以应用于临床调强放疗,Xio系统的准确性要优于Oncentra MasterPlan系统。
文摘Objective： The aim of the work was to compare the dosimetric results that were obtained by using two treatment planning systems （TPS） Siemens KonRad version 2.2.23, Elekta XiO version 4.4 to perform a simultaneous integrated boost （SIB） for head and neck and central nervous system （CNS） cases in paediatric patients. Methods： The CT scan data for five paediatric patients, with head and neck and CNS tumors, were transferred into both of the TPSs. Clinical step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy （IMRT） treatment plans were designed using 6 MV photon beam for delivery on a Siemens Oncor Accelerator with multileaf collimator MLC （82 leaf）. Plans were optimized to achieve the same clinical objectives using the same beam energy, number and direction of beams. The analysis was based on isodose distributions, the dose volume histogram （DVH） for planning target volume （PTV） and the relevant organs at risk （OARs） as well as volume receiving 2 Gy and 5 Gy, also total number of segments, MU/segment, and the number of MU/cGy had been investigated. Treatment delivery time and conformation number were two other parameters in this study. Results： The segmentation using KonRad was more efficient, resulting in fewer segments （reduction between 13.2% and 48.3%）, fewer M Us （reduction between 10.7% and 33%） and that reflected on treatment delivery times to be shorter by up to 8 rain or 46%. In most of the cases KonRad had the highest volume receiving in excess of 2 and 5 Gy, and XiO showed the lowest. Also KonRad achieved slightly better conformality （0.76 ± 0.054） than XiO （0.73 ± 0.05） while XiO presented a higher modulation factor value （3.3 MU/cGy） than KonRad （2.4 MU/cGy）. Conclusion： The KonRad treatment planning system was found to be superior to the XiO treatment planning system. This is true for the possible increase of radiation-induced secondary malignancies as well as for the local control.
文摘目的:通过总结比较Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统对宫颈癌调强放疗剂量验证的结果,分析评价宫颈癌调强放疗在临床应用上剂量的准确性。方法:分别用固体水模和二维电离室矩阵Mapcheck、FC65-G指形电离室在定位螺旋CT上进行扫描,断层数据通过网络传输到Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统中建立验证模体。选取2013年1月至5月在本院24例宫颈癌调强治疗患者,在两个TPS(Treatment Planning Systems)上将宫颈癌调强放疗计划移植到模体上,用IBA公司的DOSE1、FC65-G指形电离室模体和Nuclear公司的二维电离室矩阵Mapcheck模体在加速器下进行点剂量和面剂量的采集。结果:Eclipse系统的12位患者随机选取24个照射野3 mm 3%面剂量的γ通过率均值为98.8%,Xio系统的12位患者随机选取24个照射野3mm3%面剂量γ通过率均值为97.7%,二者比较差别有统计学意义(P<0.01)。Eclipse系统的12位患者84个照射野点剂量的误差的均值为1.2417%,Xio系统的12位患者84个照射野点剂量的误差均值为2.4892%,二者比较差别具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:Eclipse和Xio两个治疗计划系统都可以应用于宫颈癌临床调强放疗,但Eclipse系统的准确性优于Xio系统。
