Cheng Jason Chia-Hsien, Wu Jian Kuen, Huang Chao-Ming, Liu Hua-Shan, Huang David Y, Tsai Stella Y, Cheng Skye Hongiun, Jian James Jer-Min, Huang Andrew T
Department of Radiation Oncology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):229-34. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00091-9.
This study compares the difference in dose-volume data between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and previously documented radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) after 3D-CRT.
Between November 1993 and December 1999, 68 patients with HCC were treated with 3D-CRT at our institution. Twelve of them were diagnosed with RILD within 4 months of completion of 3D-CRT. RILD was defined as either anicteric elevation of alkaline phosphatase level of at least twofold and nonmalignant ascites, or elevated transaminases of at least fivefold the upper limit of normal or of pretreatment levels. Three-dimensional treatment planning using dose-volume histograms of normal liver was used to obtain the dose-volume data. These 12 patients with RILD were replanned with an IMRT planning system using the five-field (gantry angles 0 degrees, 72 degrees, 144 degrees, 216 degrees, and 288 degrees ) step-and-shoot technique to compare the dosimetric difference in targets and organs at risk between 3D-CRT and IMRT. Mean dose and normal tissue complication probability with literature-cited volume effect parameter of 0.32, curve steepness parameter of 0.15, and TD(50)(1) of 40 Gy, were used for the liver, whereas volume fraction at a given dose level was used for other critical structures. Paired Student t-test with 2-tailed p < 0.05 was used to assess the statistical difference between the two techniques.
With comparable target coverage between 3D-CRT and five-field step-and-shoot IMRT, IMRT was able to obtain a large dose reduction in the spinal cord (5.7% vs. 33.2%, p = 0.007), and achieved at least similar organ sparing for kidneys and stomach. IMRT had diverse dosimetric effect on liver, with significant reduction in normal tissue complication probability (23.7% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.009), but significant increase in mean dose (2924 cGy vs. 2504 cGy, p = 0.009), as compared with 3D-CRT.
IMRT is capable of preserving acceptable target coverage and improving or at least maintaining the nonhepatic organ sparing for patients with HCC and previously diagnosed RILD after 3D-CRT. The true impact of this technique on the liver remains unsettled and may depend on the exact volume effect of this organ.
本研究比较肝细胞癌(HCC)患者接受三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)后出现先前记录的放射性肝病(RILD)时,三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)与调强放疗(IMRT)之间的剂量体积数据差异。
1993年11月至1999年12月期间,我院对68例HCC患者进行了3D-CRT治疗。其中12例在3D-CRT完成后4个月内被诊断为RILD。RILD定义为碱性磷酸酶水平无黄疸性升高至少两倍且伴有非恶性腹水,或转氨酶升高至少为正常上限或治疗前水平的五倍。使用正常肝脏的剂量体积直方图进行三维治疗计划,以获取剂量体积数据。对这12例RILD患者使用五野(机架角度0度、72度、144度、216度和288度)步进式IMRT计划系统重新规划,以比较3D-CRT和IMRT之间靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异。肝脏采用平均剂量和正常组织并发症概率,文献引用的体积效应参数为0.32、曲线陡度参数为0.15、TD(50)(1)为40 Gy,而其他关键结构采用给定剂量水平下的体积分数。采用双侧p<0.05的配对学生t检验评估两种技术之间的统计学差异。
在3D-CRT和五野步进式IMRT具有可比的靶区覆盖的情况下,IMRT能够使脊髓剂量大幅降低(5.7%对33.2%,p = 0.007),并且在肾脏和胃的器官保护方面至少达到相似水平。IMRT对肝脏有不同的剂量学影响,与3D-CRT相比,正常组织并发症概率显著降低(23.7%对36.6%,p = 0.009),但平均剂量显著增加(2924 cGy对2504 cGy,p = 0.009)。
对于HCC患者以及先前诊断为3D-CRT后RILD的患者,IMRT能够保持可接受的靶区覆盖,并改善或至少维持对非肝脏器官的保护。该技术对肝脏的真正影响仍未确定,可能取决于该器官的确切体积效应。