Giant Cell Tumor of Lumbar Spine Treated with RapidArc Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy: Case Report and Review of Literature

Background: Giant cell tumors of the lumbar spine are rare and complete resection without major functional comprise is challenging despite advancements in spine surgery techniques. Radiation therapy has been an option in such cases;however there are high concerns for associated high small bowel toxicity and lack of dose escalation to achieve local control. With advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) it is now possible to give high radiation dose to tumor with minimal toxicity. Herein we present a rare case of giant cell tumor of fourth lumbar (L4) vertebra treated with RapidArc intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with relevant review of literature. Methods: A 30-year-old female had low back pain for 6 months. She underwent surgical decompression at another hospital as having a L4-5 protruded intervertebral disc 2 months previously, but her back pain progressed with weakness of both legs with restricted movement. Radiological and pathological work-up confirmed the diagnosis of giant cell tumor of L4 vertebra. She refused further surgery and was referred to us for radiotherapy. Treatment plans for prescribed radiation dose of 59.4 Gy in 30 fractions were made by 3DCRT and RapidArc IMAT and comparison was made. Student’s unpaired t test was used to determine the significance of the difference between two plans in terms of dose to the tumor and small bowel. A p value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Related literature was searched. Results: In RapidArc IMAT and 3DCRT plans mean doses to planning treatment volume (PTV) were 61.24 Gy (55.98 - 66.23) and 60.71 Gy (49.87 - 63.74) respectively (p 0.04) and mean doses to small bowel were found lesser in RapidArc plan [14.78 Gy (range: 0.39 - 53.15)] as compared to 3DCRT plan. Patient was started on RapidArc IMRT and she completed the course without any major sequelae. Conclusion: Lumbar spine giant cell tumors are rare and complete resection is often not possible. RapidArc IMAT is a feasible option for such patients to deliver high dose radiation to achieve good local control with marked symptom relief and without severe toxicity.

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.

Dosimetry Comparison between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy with RapidArc and Fixed Field Dynamic IMRT for Local-Regionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Objective: A dosimetric study was performed to evaluate the performance of volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy with RapidArc on locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: The CT scan data sets of 20 patients of locally advanced NPC were selected randomly. The plans were managed using volumetric modulated arc with RapidArc and fixed nine-field coplanar dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for these patients. The dosimetry of the planning target volumes (PTV), the organs at risk (OARs) and the healthy tissue were evaluated. The dose prescription was set to 70 Gy to the primary tumor and 60 Gy to the clinical target volumes (CTV) in 33 fractions. Each fraction applied daily, five fractions per week. The monitor unit (MU) values and the delivery time were scored to evaluate the expected treatment efficiency. Results: Both techniques had reached clinical treatment’s requirement. The mean dose (Dmean), maximum dose (Dmax) and minimum dose (Dmin) in RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for PTV were 68.4±0.6 Gy, 74.8±0.9 Gy and 56.8±1.1 Gy; and 67.6±0.6 Gy, 73.8±0.4 Gy and 57.5±0.6 Gy (P<0.05), respectively. Homogeneity index was 78.85±1.29 in RapidArc and 80.34±0.54 (P<0.05) in IMRT. The conformity index (CI: 95%) was 0.78±0.01 for both techniques (P>0.05). Compared to IMRT, RapidArc allowed a reduction of Dmean to the brain stem, mandible and optic nerves of 14.1% (P<0.05), 5.6% (P<0.05) and 12.2% (P<0.05), respectively. For the healthy tissue and the whole absorbed dose, Dmean of RapidArc was reduced by 3.6% (P<0.05), and 3.7% (P<0.05), respectively. The Dmean to the parotids, the spinal cord and the lens had no statistical difference among them. The mean MU values of RapidArc and IMRT were 550 and 1,379. The mean treatment time of RapidArc and IMRT was 165 s and 447 s. Compared to IMRT, the delivery time and the MU values of RapidArc were reduced by 63% and 60%, respectively. Conclusion: For locally advanced NPC, both RapidArc and IMRT reached the clinic requirement. The target volume coverage was similar for the different techniques. The RapidArc technique showed some improvements in OARs and other tissue sparing while using reduced MUs and delivery time.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs c-IMRT in esophageal cancer:A treatment planning comparison

AIM： To compare the volumetric-modulated arc ther- apy （VMAT） plans with conventional sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy （c-IMRT） plans in esophageal cancer （EC）. METHODS： Twenty patients with EC were selected, including 5 cases located in the cervical, the upper, the middle and the lower thorax, respectively. Five plans were generated with the eclipse planning sys- tem： three using c-IMRT with 5 fields （5F）, 7 fields （7F） and 9 fields （gF）, and two using VMAT with a single arc （1A） and double arcs （2A）. The treatment plans were designed to deliver a dose of 60 Gy to the plan-ning target volume （PTV） with the same constrains in a 2.0 Gy daily fraction, 5 d a week. Plans were normal- ized to 95% of the PTV that received 100% of the pre- scribed dose. We examined the dose-volume histogram parameters of PTV and the organs at risk （OAR） such as lungs, spinal cord and heart. Monitor units （MU） and normal tissue complication probability （NTCP） of OAR were also reported. RESULTS： Both c-IMRT and VMAT plans resulted in abundant dose coverage of PTV for EC of different Io- cations. The dose conformity to PTV was improved as the number of field in c-IMRT or rotating arc in VMAT was increased. The doses to PTV and OAR in VMAT plans were not statistically different in comparison with c-IMRT plans, with the following exceptions： in cervical and upper thoracic EC, the conformity index （CI） was higher in VMAT （1A 0.78 and 2A 0.8） than in c-IMRT （5F 0.62, 7F 0.66 and 9F 0.73） and homogeneity was slightly better in c-IMRT （7F 1.09 and 9F 1.07） than in VMAT （1A 1,1 and 2A 1.09）, Lung V30 was lower in VMAT （1A 12.52 and 2A 12.29） than in c-IMRT （7F 14.35 and 9F 14.81）. The humeral head doses were significantly increased in VMAT as against c-IMRT. In the middle and lower thoracic EC, CI in VMAT （1A 0.76 and 2A 0.74） was higher than in c-IMRT （5F 0.63 Gy and 7F 0.67 Gy）, and homogeneity was almost similar between VMAT and c-IMRT. V20 （2A 21.49 Gy vs 7F 24.59 Gy and 9F 24.16 Gy） and V30 （2A 9.73 Gy vs 5F 12.61 Gy, 7F 11.5 Gy and 9F 11.37 Gy） of lungs in VMAT were lower than in c-IMRT, but low doses to lungs （V5 and Vl0） were increased. V30 （1A 48.12 Gy vs 5F 59.2 Gy, 7F 58.59 Gy and 9F 57.2 Gy）, V40 and V50 of heart in VMAT was lower than in c-IMRT. MUs in VMAT plans were significantly reduced in comparison with c-IMRT, maximum doses to the spinal cord and mean doses of lungs were similar between the two techniques. NTCP of spinal cord was 0 for all cases. NTCP of lungs and heart in VMAT were lower than in c-IMRT. The advantage of VMAT plan was enhanced by doubling the arc. CONCLUSION： Compared with c-IMRT, VMAT, especial- ly the 2A, slightly improves the OAR dose sparing, such as lungs and heart, and reduces NTCP and MU with a better PTV coverage.

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.

Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for limited osteosclerotic myeloma

AIM:To assess the feasibility of volumetric intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) in patients with limited polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal gammopathy, and skin changes syndrome. METHODS:A 70-year-old male with histologically confirmed osteosclerotic myeloma was treated in our department in July 2010 with VMAT. Fourty-six Gray in 23 fractions were given on three bone lesions. Doses delivered to target volume and critical organs were compared with a tridimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-RT) plan. Treatment was well tolerated without any side effects.RESULTS:VMAT improved dose homogeneity within the target volume, as compared to 3D-RT (standard deviations:2.9 Gy and 1.6 Gy for 3D and VMAT, respectively). VMAT resulted in a better sparing of critical organs. Dose delivered to 20% of organ volume (D20) was reduced from 22 Gy (3D-RT) to 15 Gy (VMAT) for small bowel, from 24 Gy (3D-RT) to 17 Gy (VMAT) for bladder and from 47 Gy (3D-RT) to 3 Gy (VMAT) for spinal cord. Volumes of critical organs that received at least 20 Gy (V20) were decreased by the use of VMAT, as compared to 3D-RT (V20 bladder:10% vs 99%; V20 small bowel:6% vs 21%). One year after treatment completion, no tumor progression has been reported. CONCLUSION:VMAT improved dose distribution as compared to 3D-RT for limited osteosclerotic myeloma, with better saving of critical organs.

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。

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。

Rapid Arc放射治疗技术对鼻咽癌周围正常组织器官保护的作用

目的研究容积弧形调强(Rapid Arc)放射治疗技术对鼻咽癌周围正常组织器官保护的作用及安全性。方法抽取香港大学深圳医院2017年1月至2018年12月收入鼻咽癌患者总计100例,以信封法将其随机等分成观察组及对照组。对照组设计常规调强放疗计划,观察组则设计Rapid Arc放疗计划。比较两组计划靶区剂量学参数,危及器官计量学参数,治疗跳数(MU)以及计划投照时间等方面的差异。结果观察组各靶区的适形指数均高于对照组(P<0.05);观察组与对照组在各危及器官剂量学参数方面比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组MU以及计划投照时间均低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论 Rapid Arc放疗技术对鼻咽癌周围正常组织器官保护的作用与常规调强放疗技术相当,但其在靶区适形度方面优于常规调强放疗技术,且可显著缩短治疗时间,减少总机器跳数,继而增加治疗效率。

直肠癌和宫颈癌容积调强计划的ArcCheck三维剂量验证应用分析

目的探究ArcCheck-3DVH在直肠癌与宫颈癌调强放疗计划上的三维剂量验证效果,并探讨该设备在2组计划剂量验证结果上的差异。方法选取基于Monaco 6.1计划系统的19例直肠癌与21例宫颈癌计划为研究对象。采用SNC Patient计算并比较diff/Dist=3 mm/3%、阈值TH=10条件下放疗计划系统(Treatment Planning System,TPS)与ArcCheck模体测得的γ通过率。再采用3DVH系统重建靶区与危及器官的三维剂量分布,比较其与TPS在D98%(98%的靶区体积接受的最小剂量)、D_(2%)(2%的靶区体积接受的最小剂量)和D_(mean)(平均剂量)等参数条件下的剂量差异。结果19例直肠癌计划在SNC Patient上计算得到的平均γ通过率为99.46%±0.70%,大于3DVH的98.88%±0.46%,且剂量差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。临床靶区的γ通过率均大于94%且在D_(2%)下剂量差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05)。危及器官的γ通过率均大于95%且除小肠V40(器官接受至少40 Gy剂量的体积百分比)、脊髓D_(mean)外,其余危及器官在各参数下差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。21例宫颈癌计划在SNC Patient上计算得到的γ通过率为99.67%[99.35%,99.95%],大于3DVH的98.49%[98.05%,98.95%],且两者之间的差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。临床靶区的γ通过率均大于93.70%并在D_(mean)和D_(2%)下的剂量差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。危及器官的γ通过率均大于91%,且除直肠V30(器官接受至少30 Gy剂量的体积百分比)、脊髓D_(mean)外,其余器官在各参数下的剂量差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论ArcCheck-3DVH系统不仅能整体评估直肠癌和宫颈癌容积旋转调强放疗计划的剂量验证结果,还能进一步提供靶区与危及器官的测量重建剂量和与TPS计算剂量之间的差异。

Implementation of Constant Dose Rate and Constant Angular Spacing Intensity-modulated Arc Therapy for Cervical Cancer by Using a Conventional Linear Accelerator

Background： Volumetric-modulated arc therapy （VMAT） can only be implemented on the new generation linacs such as the Varian Trilogy（R） and Elekta Synergy（R）.This prevents most existing linacs from delivering VMAT.The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a conventional linear accelerator delivering constant dose rate and constant angular spacing intensity-modulated arc therapy （CDR-CAS-IMAT） for treating cervical cancer.Methods： Twenty patients with cervical cancer previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy （IMRT） using Varian Clinical 23EX were retreated using CDR-CAS-IMAT.The planning target volume （PTV） was set as 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions.Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram.The homogeneity index （HI）, target volume conformity index （CI）, the dose to organs at risk, radiation delivery time, and monitor units （MUs） were also compared.The paired t-test was used to analyze the two data sets.All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software.Results： Compared to the IMRT group, the CDR-CAS-IMAT group showed better PTV CI （0.85 ＆#177; 0.03 vs.0.81 ＆#177; 0.03, P =0.001）, clinical target volume CI （0.46 ＆#177; 0.05 vs.0.43 ＆#177; 0.05, P =0.001）, HI （0.09＆#177;0.02 vs.0.11 ＆#177; 0.02, P =0.005） and D95 （5196.33 ＆#177; 28.24 cGy vs.5162.63 ＆#177; 31.12 cGy, P =0.000）, and cord D2 （3743.8 ＆#177; 118.7 cGy vs.3806.2 ＆#177; 98.7 cGy, P =0.017） and rectum V40 （41.9 ＆#177; 6.1% vs.44.2 ＆#177; 4.8%, P =0.026）.Treatment time （422.7 ＆#177; 46.7 s vs.84.6 ＆#177; 7.8 s, P =0.000） and the total plan Mus （927.4 ＆#177; 79.1 vs.787.5 ＆#177; 78.5, P =0.000） decreased by a factor of 0.8 and 0.15, respectively.The IMRT group plans were superior to the CDR-CAS-IMAT group plans considering decreasing bladder V50 （17.4 ＆#177; 4.5% vs.16.6 ＆#177; 4.2%, P =0.049）, bowel V30 （39.6 ＆#177; 6.5% vs.36.6 ＆#177; 7.5%, P =0.008）, and low-dose irradiation volume;there were no significant differences in other statistical indexes.Conclusions： Patients with cervical cancer treated with CDR-CAS-IMAT using Varian Clinical 23EX can get equivalent or superior dose distribution compared to those treated with IMRT.CDR-CAS-IMAT has a less treatment time and MU, which can reduce the uncertainty factor and patient discomfort in treatment.

鼻咽癌放射治疗IMRT与Arc调强计划的剂量学比较

目的分析鼻咽癌放射治疗IMRT与Rapid Arc调强放疗计划方案,为临床提供参考。方法 10例鼻咽癌CT增强扫描模拟定位后勾画CTV,按统一标准外扩PTV;实施均分9野IMRT计划和单弧、双弧、3弧Arc调强计划;以PTV处方剂量70Gy,分析各治疗计划靶区剂量分布和危及器官受限剂量,进行剂量学对比研究并比较治疗时间的长短。结果 IMRT调强计划适形指数及不均匀指数明显优于单弧,与双弧和3弧没有明显区别;各计划之间危及器官受量均低于参考受限剂量;照射体积(irradiation volume,IV)未见明显区别;机器跳数(monitor unit,MU),Arc调强计划明显低于IMRT调强计划;治疗时间上Arc调强计划更短。结论目前虽IMRT计划更符合鼻咽癌的治疗剂量要求,但Arc计划在缩短治疗时间、降低治疗时的机器跳数上有明显优势。

RayArc在胸部旋转调强放射治疗计划设计中的应用

目的:利用RayStation计划系统提供的RayArc模块,在Varian公司的Trilogy加速器上进行胸部容积旋转调强(VMAT)计划设计,并对胸部VMAT和静态调强放射治疗(sIMRT)两种治疗计划的结果进行评价。方法:利用RayStation计划系统进行VMAT计划设计,需要对加速器参数和计划参数进行正确设置。计划设计使用直接子野优化算法,目标函数的选择遵循与sIMRT类似的标准。随机挑选10例胸部肿瘤(食管癌5例,肺癌5例)患者分别使用RayArc模块,制定VMAT计划,并与相应的sIMRT计划比较剂量分布、靶区适形度,以及危及器官剂量方面的差异情况。VMAT计划采用182°到178°的两个360°对偶治疗弧,sIMRT计划采用角度分别为182°、220°、310°、345°、15°、50°、150°的前后7个照射野,子野数为50,两者使用相同的逆向优化目标函数。结果:VMAT治疗计划经过多次优化,基本上可以在30min内完成,并达到放疗医师制定的临床目标。与前后7野sIMRT计划相比,356°双弧VMAT计划具有更好的靶区适形度,但是肺部的低剂量区(V_5)略高。另外,加速器运行VMAT计划治疗效率较高,可将治疗时间由sIMRT的6~8min缩短为2~3min。结论:使用RayStation计划系统的RayArc模块可以快速高效制定VMAT计划。RayArc制定出的胸部对偶双弧VMAT计划与常见的胸部7野sIMRT计划都可以满足放疗医师的临床目标要求,但是VMAT计划具有更好的靶区适形度和更高的治疗效率。

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。

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。

蒙特卡罗模拟机架和多叶准直器误差对旋转放疗剂量的影响

研究在常规直线加速器实施快速旋转调强放疗(IMAT)治疗过程中,内置多叶准直器(MLCs)和机架旋转误差对放疗剂量的影响。随机选择7例脑胶质瘤患者,并在常规直线加速器Varian 23EX上设计IMAT计划,对MLCs和机架分别引入不同大小误差。通过不一致指数和剂量体积直方图(DVH)评估引入误差对IMAT放疗临床剂量的影响。对于单侧MLCs随机误差,当MLCs随机误差达2 mm时计划靶体积平均剂量(PTV-Dmean)增加了约2.7%。当MLCs一侧外扩MLC-1 mm、MLC-2 mm、MLC-rnd时导致其PTV-Dmean平均偏差分别为1.12%、2.15%和1.15%,晶体的平均剂量偏差分别为5.25%、9.97%和5.49%。对于MLC两组叶片分别偏移±2 mm时导致PTV平均剂量的最大偏差为0.8%,晶体和脑干的最大剂量和平均剂量分别增加了11.4%、15.8%和1.99%、1.07%。引入机架角度误差,计划靶体积最小剂量(PTV-Dmin)和PTV-Dmean最大剂量分别降低了2.75%和0.35%。导致危及器官(OAR)的DVH的剂量学偏差变化较大,尤其对于晶体当机架偏差为(−2°)时晶体的最大剂量和平均剂量分别偏高达16.9%和38.5%。机架和MLCs误差对OAR的受量均产生较大剂量偏差。随机误差导致的MLCs剂量偏差受叶片位移误差的大小以及在特定弧段处的射束子野权重影响,MLCs误差(−2 mm或+2 mm)时产生的剂量偏差最大。机架旋转误差对靶区PTV剂量分布的影响不大,但是对于OAR会产生较大的剂量偏差。

乳腺癌改良根治术后两种调强放疗技术的甲状腺辐射剂量学评价

目的比较左乳腺癌改良根治术后调强放疗(IMRT)和容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)中甲状腺辐射剂量学特点。方法选择2021年12月至2023年5月在上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院黄浦分院放疗科接受左乳腺癌改良根治术后辅助放疗的30例患者,分别采用IMRT和VMAT,靶区处方剂量均为50 Gy/25次。比较2种计划的靶区剂量学参数,以及危及器官剂量体积限量(Vx,x表示受照剂量)和平均剂量(Dmean)等。结果VMAT靶区适形度优于IMRT(P<0.001)。与VMAT相比,IMRT中心脏V5、V10、Dmea n和右肺V5、右侧乳腺Dmea n较小,左肺V20较大(P<0.001)。IMRT与VMAT中左侧甲状腺V5、V10差异无统计学意义;IMRT中左侧甲状腺及全甲状腺V20、V30、V40、Dmean和右侧甲状腺V10、Dmean均小于VMAT(P<0.001)。结论IMRT和VMAT技术均能满足临床辐射剂量学要求,其中采用IMRT患者的甲状腺受照剂量更小,且IMRT更适用于心脏条件要求高的患者。

非共面容积调强和非共面固定野调强在脑转移瘤脑海马体保护全脑放射治疗联合同步推量的剂量学研究

目的:探讨Monaco治疗计划系统非共面容积旋转调强治疗(VMAT)和非共面固定野调强放射治疗(IMRT)在脑转移瘤海马保护全脑放射治疗(HA-WBRT)联合同步推量(SIB)的剂量学差异,为临床提供切实可行的治疗方案。方法:回顾性选择2022年6月至2023年10月在高州市人民医院接受放射治疗的22例脑转移瘤患者病历资料,每例患者均采用HA-WBRT联合SIB(HA-WBRT+SIB)的非共面VMAT和非共面IMRT两种放射治疗计划,在满足靶区处方剂量要求的情况下比较两种计划的靶区和危及器官剂量分布、计划的机器跳数和治疗前计划验证。结果:两种计划的计划肿瘤靶区(PGTV)的50、55 Gy剂量覆盖的体积(V_(50)、V_(55))、最大剂量(D_(max))、异质性指数(HI)和适形性指数(CI)比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对于全脑计划靶区(PTV-brain-SIB)的98%体积覆盖的剂量(D98%),IMRT与VMAT比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);VMAT计划可显著提高PTV-brain-SIB的30 Gy剂量覆盖的体积(V30)、降低HI值和提高CI值,与IMRT计划比较,差异有统计学意义(t=-6.366、3.289、-8.343,P<0.05)。VMAT计划左眼和右眼的D_(max)显著低于IMRT计划,差异均有统计学意义(t=5.784、5.351,P<0.05);VMAT计划右内耳的D_(max)高于IMRT计划,差异均有统计学意义(t=-2.848,P<0.05)。VMAT会显著增加左、右脑海马的D_(100%)高于IMRT计划,差异均有统计学意义(t=-2.564、-6.578,P<0.05)。IMRT计划的机器跳数为(1174±168)MU,显著低于VMAT计划,差异有统计学意义(t=-6.249,P<0.05);VMAT计划治疗时间为(294.1±16.4)s,少于IMRT计划,差异有统计学意义(t=-7.400,P<0.05)。在γ分析3%/2 mm和2%/2 mm标准下,IMRT计划的γ通过率分别为(99.1±0.6)%和(97.6±1.0)%,显著高于VMAT计划,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.733、5.780,P<0.05)。结论:基于Monaco放射治疗计划系统的非共面VMAT和非共面固定野IMRT两种治疗计划对脑转移瘤患者的海马保护全脑放射治疗联合同步推量照射均可产生临床可接受的结果。VMAT相对IMRT在靶区剂量分布更有优势,治疗效率更高,而IMRT可以更好地保护海马和降低机器跳数。