Suppr超能文献

使用基准剂量体积直方图在前列腺癌的三维适形放射治疗和调强放射治疗之间选择最佳技术。

Use of benchmark dose-volume histograms for selection of the optimal technique between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in prostate cancer.

作者信息

Luo Chunhui, Yang Claus Chunli, Narayan Samir, Stern Robin L, Perks Julian, Goldberg Zelanna, Ryu Janice, Purdy James A, Vijayakumar Srinivasan

机构信息

Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.

出版信息

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 15;66(4):1253-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.010.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop and validate our own benchmark dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of bladder and rectum for both conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and to evaluate quantitatively the benefits of using IMRT vs. 3D-CRT in treating localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

During the implementation of IMRT for prostate cancer, our policy was to plan each patient with both 3D-CRT and IMRT. This study included 31 patients with T1b to T2c localized prostate cancer, for whom we completed double-planning using both 3D-CRT and IMRT techniques. The target volumes included prostate, either with or without proximal seminal vesicles. Bladder and rectum DVH data were summarized to obtain an average DVH for each technique and then compared using two-tailed paired t test analysis.

RESULTS

For 3D-CRT our bladder doses were as follows: mean 28.8 Gy, v60 16.4%, v70 10.9%; rectal doses were: mean 39.3 Gy, v60 21.8%, v70 13.6%. IMRT plans resulted in similar mean dose values: bladder 26.4 Gy, rectum 34.9 Gy, but lower values of v70 for the bladder (7.8%) and rectum (9.3%). These benchmark DVHs have resulted in a critical evaluation of our 3D-CRT techniques over time.

CONCLUSION

Our institution has developed benchmark DVHs for bladder and rectum based on our clinical experience with 3D-CRT and IMRT. We use these standards as well as differences in individual cases to make decisions on whether patients may benefit from IMRT treatment rather than 3D-CRT.

摘要

目的

本研究的目的是为传统三维适形放射治疗(3D-CRT)和调强放射治疗(IMRT)开发并验证我们自己的膀胱和直肠基准剂量体积直方图(DVH),并定量评估在治疗局限性前列腺癌中使用IMRT与3D-CRT相比的益处。

方法和材料

在对前列腺癌实施IMRT期间,我们的策略是对每位患者同时进行3D-CRT和IMRT计划。本研究纳入了31例T1b至T2c期局限性前列腺癌患者,我们使用3D-CRT和IMRT技术对其完成了双重计划。靶区包括前列腺,可带或不带近端精囊。汇总膀胱和直肠的DVH数据,以获得每种技术的平均DVH,然后使用双尾配对t检验分析进行比较。

结果

对于3D-CRT,我们的膀胱剂量如下:平均28.8 Gy,v60为16.4%,v70为10.9%;直肠剂量为:平均39.3 Gy,v60为21.8%,v70为13.6%。IMRT计划产生了相似的平均剂量值:膀胱26.4 Gy,直肠34.9 Gy,但膀胱(7.8%)和直肠(9.3%)的v70值较低。这些基准DVH随着时间的推移对我们的3D-CRT技术进行了批判性评估。

结论

我们的机构根据我们在3D-CRT和IMRT方面的临床经验,为膀胱和直肠开发了基准DVH。我们使用这些标准以及个别病例的差异来决定患者是否可能从IMRT治疗而非3D-CRT治疗中获益。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验