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.

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.

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.

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.

Partial and Full Arc Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Lung Cancer Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy with Different Definitions of Internal Target Volume Based on 4D CT

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility of partial arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in lung cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), as well the volumetric and dosimetric effects of different internal target volume (ITV) definitions with 4D CT. Methods: Fourteen patients with primary and metastatic lung cancer underwent SBRT were enrolled. Full and partial arc VMAT plans were generated with four different ITVs: ITVall, ITVMIP, ITVAIP and ITV2phases, representing ITVs generated from all 10 respiratory phases, maximum intensity projection (MIP), average intensity projection (AIP), and 2 extreme respiratory phases. Volumetric and dosimetric differences, as well as MU and delivery time were investigated. Results: Partial arc VMAT irradiated more dose at 2 cm away from planning target volume (PTV) (P = 0.002), however, it achieved better protection on mean lung dose , lung V5, spinal cord, heart and esophagus compared with full arc VMAT. The average MU and delivery time of partial arc VMAT were 240 and 1.6 min less than those of full arc VMAT. There were no significant differences on target coverage and organ at risks (OARs) sparing among four ITVs. The average percent volume differences of ITVMIP, ITVAIP and ITV2phases to ITVall were 8.6%, 13.4%, and 25.2%, respectively. Conclusions: Although partial arc VMAT delivered more dose 2 cm out of PTV, it decreases the dose to lung, spinal cord, and esophagus, as well decreased the total MU and delivery time compared with full arc VMAT without sacrificing target coverage. Partial arc VMAT was feasible and more efficient for lung SBRT.

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.

A dosimetric evaluation of flattening filter-free volumetric modulated arc therapy for postoperative treatment of cervical cancer

Objective The aim of the study was to compare flattening filter-free(FFF) beams and conventional flattening filter(FF) beams in volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) for cervical cancer after surgery, through a retrospective planning study.Methods VMAT plans of FFF beams and normal FF beams were designed for a cohort of 15 patients. The prescribed dose was 45 Gy to 1.8 Gy per fraction, and at least 95% of the planning target volume received this dose. Doses were computed with a commercially available treatment planning system using a Monte Carlo(MC) algorithm. Plans were compared according to dose-volume histogram analysis in terms of planning target volume homogeneity and conformity indices(HI and CI), as well as organs at risk(OAR) dose and volume parameters. Results FFF-VMAT was similar to FF-VMAT in terms of CI, but inferior to FF-VMAT considering HI. No statistically differences were observed between FFF-VMAT and FF-VMAT in following organ at risks including pelvic bone marrow, small bowel, bladder, rectum, and normal tissue(NT)..Conclusion For patients with cervical cancer after hysterectomy, the FFF beam achieved target and OAR dose distribution similar to that of the FF beam. Reduction of beam-on time in cervical cancer is beneficial.

Dosimetric comparison of different multileaf collimators in volumetric modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Objective The aiom of the study was to compare the impacts of two types of multileaf collimators （MLC） [standard MLC with a width of 10 mm （sMLC） and micro-MLC with a width of 5 mm （mMLC）] on volumetric modulated arc therapy （VMAT） planning for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods VMAT for ten patients with inoperable malignant pleural mesotheliomas was retrospectively planned with the sMLC and mMLC. Histogram-based dose-volume parameters of the planning target vol- ume （PTV） [conformity index （CI） and homogeneous index （HI）] and organs-at-risk were compared for VMAT plans with sMLC （sMLC-VMAT） and mMLC （mMLC-VMAT）. Results The mMLC-VMAT plans were more efficient （average delivery time： 2.67±1.49 min） than the sMLC-VMAT plans （average delivery time： 4.21 ± 2.03 min; P 〈 0.05）. Moreover, compared to the sMLC plans, the mMLC plans demonstrated advantages in the dose coverage of the PTV （CI 0.75 ± 0.08 vs 0.73± 0.09; HI 1.09 ±0.02 vs 1.10± 0.02）, although the difference was not statistically significant （P 〉 0.05）. In addition, significant dose sparing in the fraction of the ipsilateral lung volume receiving 〉 20 Gy （V20; 54.72± 27.08 vs 58.52 ± 29.30） and 〉 30 Gy （V30; 42.74 ± 27.86 vs 46.86± 31.49） radiation, respectively, was observed for the mMLC plans （P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion Comparing sMLC-VMAT and mMLC-VMAT not only demonstrated the higher efficiency and better optimal target coverage of mMLC-VMAT, but also considerably improved the dose sparing of the ipsilateral lung in the VMAT plans for mali qnant pleural mesothelioma.

Benefits and Limitations of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Treating Bilateral Breast Cancer with Regional Lymph Nodes

Purpose: The study was performed comparing dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and field-in-field (FiF) techniques on a patient with synchronous bilateral breast carcinoma. Methods: The patients with bilateral breast cancer treatment were included in this study. A total dose of 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions was prescribed to the Planning Target Volume (PTV) of the whole bilateral breast cancer with the supraclavicular and infraclavicular nodes, with a complementary boost of 10 Gy in 4 fractions to the surgical bed (PTVboost). For both radiotherapy techniques, several VxGy parameters were analyzed for the PTVs, together with the Conformity index (CI), the Homogeneity index (HI) and the critical organs at risk (OARs), lungs and heart. Results: The patient was treated by the VMAT technique and the daily treatment time was less than 20 minutes with daily CBCT imaging. In the VMAT plan, the PTV 95% dose covered 38.89 ± 0.81 Gy, compared to 37.26 ± 1.02 Gy in the FiF technique. The VMAT plan improved the dose homogeneity index and lower dose in lung towards high dose region. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the viability of the VMAT technique in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer. The introduced single isocentric VMAT technique is fast to deliver and it increases the dose homogeneity of the target volume with some limitations. The treatment was well tolerated, without interruption of the treatment courses caused by treatment-related toxicities.

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.

ArcCHECK Machine QA工具在医用直线加速器质量保证中的应用效果

目的探讨ArcCHECK Machine QA工具在医用直线加速器质量保证中的应用效果。方法利用ArcCHECK Machine QA工具和ArcCHECK体模对医用直线加速器进行性能测试,项目包括机架角度、机架旋转速度、机架旋转中心、多叶准直器和铅门位置的一致性、机架旋转出束时的平坦度和对称性,评估该工具在医用直线加速器质量保证中的应用效果。结果旋转模式下机架平均旋转速度为3.6 deg/s,最大偏差约0.5 deg/s;机架旋转等中心形成的平均半径为0.4 mm,多叶准直器与铅门的最大距离正、负差异平均值分别为0.7 mm、-0.7 mm;旋转出束模式下Y方向的平坦度为1.8%,Y方向的对称性为1.1%,X方向的对称性为4.3%。结论ArcCHECK Machine QA工具可用于医用直线加速器常规及容积调强出束性能质量保证。

Volumetric modulation arc radiotherapy with flattening filter-free beams compared with conventional beams for nasopharyngeal carcinoma:a feasibility study

There is increasing interest in the clinical use of flattening filter-free(FFF) beams.In this study,we aimed to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy(VMAT) with FFF beams for nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC).Ten NPC patients were randomly selected to undergo a RapidArc plan with either FFF beams(RA-FFF) or conventional beams(RA-C).The doses to the planning target volumes(PTVs),organs at risk(OARs),and normal tissues were compared.The technical delivery parameters for RapidArc plans were also assessed to compare the characteristics of FFF and conventional beams.Both techniques delivered adequate doses to PTVs.For PTVs,RA-C delivered lower maximum and mean doses and improved conformity and homogeneity compared with RA-FFF.Both techniques provided similar maximum doses to the optic nerves and lenses.For the brain stem,spinal cord,larynx,parotid glands,oral cavity,and skin,RA-FFF showed significant dose increases compared to RA-C.The dose to normal tissue was lower in RA-FFF.The monitor units(MUs) were(536 ± 46) MU for RA-FFF and(501± 25) MU for RA-C.The treatment duration did not significantly differbetween plans.Although both treatment plans could meet clinical needs,RA-C is dosimetrically superior to RA-FFF for NPC radiotherapy.

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.

Feasibility of the partial-single arc technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment

The volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT)technique,in the form of RapidArc,is widely used to treat prostate cancer.The full-single arc(f-SA)technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment provides efficient treatment,but it also delivers a higher radiation dose to the rectum.This study aimed to compare the dosimetric results from the new partial-single arc(p-SA)technique with those from the f-SA technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.In this study,10 patients with lowrisk prostate cancer were selected.For each patient,two sets of RapidArc plans(f-SA and p-SA)were created in the Eclipse treatment planning system.The f-SA plan was created using one full arc,and the p-SA plan was created using planning parameters identical to those of the f-SA plan but with anterior and posterior avoidance sectors.Various dosimetric parameters of the f-SA and p-SA plans were evaluated and compared for the same target coverage and identical plan optimization parameters.The f-SA and p-SA plans showed an average difference of±1%for the doses to the planning target volume(PTV),and there were no clear differences in dose homogeneity or plan conformity.In comparison to the f-SA technique,the p-SA technique reduced the doses to the rectum by approximately 6.1%to 21.2%,to the bladder by approximately 10.3%to 29.5%,and to the penile bulb by approximately 2.2%.In contrast,the dose to the femoral heads,the integral dose,and the number of monitor units were higher in the p-SA plans by approximately 34.4%,7.7%,and 9.2%,respectively.In conclusion,it is feasible to use the p-SA technique for RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.For the same PTV coverage and identical plan optimization parameters,the p-SA technique is better in sparing the rectum and bladder without compromising plan conformity or target homogeneity when compared to the f-SA technique.

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。

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.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy dose escalation for locally advanced rectal cancers in the new era of radiotherapy:A review of literature

BACKGROUND The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers(LARC)consists on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision.Different data in literature showed a benefit on tumor downstaging and pathological complete response(pCR)rate using radiotherapy dose escalation,however there is shortage of studies regarding dose escalation using the innovative techniques for LARC(T3-4 or N1-2).AIM To analyze the role of neoadjuvant radiotherapy dose escalation for LARC using innovative radiotherapy techniques.METHODS In December 2020,we conducted a comprehensive literature search of the following electronic databases:PubMed,Web of Science,Scopus and Cochrane library.The limit period of research included articles published from January 2009 to December 2020.Screening by title and abstract was carried out to identify only studies using radiation doses equivalent dose 2 Gy fraction(EQD2)≥54 Gy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(VMAT),intensity-modulated radiotherapy or image-guided radiotherapy(IGRT)techniques.The authors’searches generated a total of 2287 results and,according to PRISMA Group(2009)screening process,21 publications fulfil selection criteria and were included for the review.RESULTS The main radiotherapy technique used consisted in VMAT and IGRT modality.The mainly dose prescription was 55 Gy to high risk volume and 45 Gy as prophylactic volume in 25 fractions given with simultaneous integrated boosts technique(42.85%).The mean pCR was 28.2%with no correlation between dose prescribed and response rates(P value≥0.5).The R0 margins and sphincter preservation rates were 98.88%and 76.03%,respectively.After a mean follow-up of 35 months local control was 92.29%.G3 or higher toxicity was 11.06%with no correlation between dose prescription and toxicities.Patients receiving EQD2 dose>58.9 Gy and BED>70.7 Gy had higher surgical complications rates compared to other group(P value=0.047).CONCLUSION Dose escalation neoadjuvant radiotherapy using innovative techniques is safe for LARC achieving higher rates of pCR.EQD2 doses>58.9 Gy is associated with higher rate of surgical complications.

基于Auto-planning技术的早期鼻咽癌容积旋转调强放射治疗计划评估

目的:比较基于Auto-planning技术的早期鼻咽癌容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)计划和常规VMAT计划之间的剂量学差异以及计划质量。方法:回顾性分析20例早期鼻咽癌患者的临床资料,采用Pinnacle3计划系统的Auto-planning自动计划模块行VMAT自动计划设计,相应的常规VMAT计划由经验丰富的物理师完成设计,分别为aVMAT和mVMAT。对两组计划的肿瘤靶区剂量分布、危及器官剂量学、机器跳数和计划设计时间进行比较和评估。结果:两组计划靶区的剂量覆盖和适形度均满足处方要求。aVMAT组的PGTV、PTV2的剂量均匀性指数明显优于mVMAT组,但两者的适形度指数无显著差异性。此外,aVMAT计划比mVMAT计划可以更好地保护脊髓,而且在降低脑干的受照剂量亦具有优势。与mVMAT组相比,aVMAT组的平均机器跳数MU减少6.83%,平均计划设计时间减少14.50%。结论:对于早期鼻咽癌,基于Auto-planning技术所产生的自动VMAT计划,比常规VMAT计划具有更佳的靶区剂量分布,且更好地降低正常组织的剂量,同时具有更高的优化效率和计划执行效率。

Auto-planning在脑胶质瘤非共面容积调强放疗计划中的应用

目的:通过比较基于Auto-planning的胶质瘤非共面自动容积旋转调强放疗(AP-VMAT)计划与常规手动非共面VMAT(M-VMAT)计划在靶区和危及器官(OAR)的剂量学差异,探讨自动优化在非共面胶质瘤VMAT计划中应用的可行性。方法:选取2016-02-15~2016-12-18在广州医科大学附属肿瘤医院放疗科接受治疗的8例胶质瘤患者,进行CT模拟定位及靶区和OAR的勾画,采用Pinnacle 9.10治疗计划系统基于同一CT图像分别设计M-VMAT计划和AP-VMAT计划,比较手动和自动两种调强计划的靶区覆盖、分析靶区均匀性指数、适形度指数及OAR受照剂量差异。结果:两种计划靶区覆盖率、平均剂量(D_(mean))、均匀性指数差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。AP-VMAT计划的适形度指数明显优于M-VMAT计划,差异有统计学意义[(0.890±0.046)vs(0.750±0.046),P<0.001];两种计划OAR中脑干最大剂量、D_5,同侧眼球、晶体、视神经最大剂量、D_(mean)差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),而AP-VMAT计划中脑干D_(mean)及视交叉、对侧眼球、晶体、视神经和正常脑组织的剂量评价参数均优于M-VMAT计划,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:相比M-VMAT计划,基于Auto-planning的自动优化方式能够简化调强计划设计过程,并一定程度上改善靶区的剂量分布,降低OAR的受照剂量。

基于ArcCheck和电子射野影像装置脑瘤患者特异性容积调强放射治疗剂量验证过程容差限值与干预限值研究

目的:基于ArcCheck和电子射野影像装置(EPID)开展脑瘤患者特异性容积调强放射治疗(VMAT)剂量验证,明确两种不同类别验证工具对脑瘤VMAT剂量验证的适用性,探索剂量验证中γ通过率容差限值(TL)和干预限值(AL),为放射治疗质量控制提供参考。方法:采用随机数表法选取在医院实施VMAT计划的180例脑瘤患者。根据病种及部位的不同将其分为30例较大靶区胶质瘤计划(X方向≥14 cm)、30例中等靶区胶质瘤计划(X方向<14 cm)、30例较小靶区室管膜瘤计划、30例生殖细胞瘤全脑计划、30例生殖细胞瘤全脑室计划、60例生殖细胞瘤小野加量计划和30例脑膜瘤计划,分别基于ArcCheck和EPID开展剂量验证,并将其分为ArcCheck组和EPID组;γ分析均设置为3%/2 mm标准、10%剂量阈值下γ通过率≥95%;对比两组验证计划γ通过率,评价剂量验证的TL和AL。结果:(1)靶区较大胶质瘤和全脑计划中ArcCheck组γ通过率分别为98.40%和98.90%,均高于EPID组,其差异有统计学意义(Z=-4.423,Z=-4.685;P<0.05),ArcCheck组TL、AL明显高于通用限值,EPID组TL、AL较通用限值差近5%;(2)靶区中等胶质瘤和全脑室计划中ArcCheck组和EPID组γ通过率分别为96.98%、97.36%和97.11%、97.60%,两组γ通过率差异无统计学意义,两组TL和AL均≥94%和>90%;(3)小靶区的室管膜瘤计划和生殖细胞瘤小野加量计划,ArcCheck组γ通过率分别为93.45%和94.06%,均低于EPID组,其差异有统计学意义(t=-9.40%,t=-9.41;P<0.05),ArcCheck组TL较通用限值差分别为6.88%和8.47%,AL较通用限值差分别为10.40%和8.76%,EPID组TL>90%、AL接近90%;(4)靶区大小不一、形状复杂的脑膜瘤中ArcCheck组和EPID组γ通过率分别为96.75%和97.05%,差异均无统计学意义,ArcCheck组TL、AL分别为89.33%和86.86%;EPID组TL、AL分别为93.17%和89.69%,更接近通用限值。结论:在靶区较大胶质瘤和全脑VMAT计划中,推荐使用ArcCheck进行剂量验证。在靶区较小室管膜瘤、生殖细胞瘤小野和脑膜瘤VMAT计划中,推荐使用EPID进行剂量验证。