Vargas Carlos, Fryer Amber, Mahajan Chaitali, Indelicato Daniel, Horne David, Chellini Angela, McKenzie Craig, Lawlor Paula, Henderson Randal, Li Zuofeng, Lin Liyong, Olivier Kenneth, Keole Sameer
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 1;70(3):744-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.07.2335. Epub 2007 Sep 27.
The contrast in dose distribution between proton radiotherapy (RT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is unclear, particularly in regard to critical structures such as the rectum and bladder.
Between August and November 2006, the first 10 consecutive patients treated in our Phase II low-risk prostate proton protocol (University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute protocol 0001) were reviewed. The double-scatter proton beam plans used in treatment were analyzed for various dosimetric endpoints. For all plans, each beam dose distribution, angle, smearing, and aperture margin were optimized. IMRT plans were created for all patients and simultaneously analyzed. The IMRT plans were optimized through multiple volume objectives, beam weighting, and individual leaf movement. The patients were treated to 78 Gray-equivalents (GE) in 2-GE fractions with a biologically equivalent dose of 1.1.
All rectal and rectal wall volumes treated to 10-80 GE (percentage of volume receiving 10-80 GE [V(10)-V(80)]) were significantly lower with proton therapy (p < 0.05). The rectal V(50) was reduced from 31.3% +/- 4.1% with IMRT to 14.6% +/- 3.0% with proton therapy for a relative improvement of 53.4% and an absolute benefit of 16.7% (p < 0.001). The mean rectal dose decreased 59% with proton therapy (p < 0.001). For the bladder and bladder wall, proton therapy produced significantly smaller volumes treated to doses of 10-35 GE (p < 0.05) with a nonsignificant advantage demonstrated for the volume receiving < or =60 GE. The bladder V(30) was reduced with proton therapy for a relative improvement of 35.3% and an absolute benefit of 15.1% (p = 0.02). The mean bladder dose decreased 35% with proton therapy (p = 0.002).
Compared with IMRT, proton therapy reduced the dose to the dose-limiting normal structures while maintaining excellent planning target volume coverage.
质子放疗(RT)与调强放疗(IMRT)之间的剂量分布对比尚不清楚,尤其是对于直肠和膀胱等关键结构。
回顾了2006年8月至11月间,在我们的II期低危前列腺质子治疗方案(佛罗里达大学质子治疗研究所方案0001)中连续治疗的前10例患者。分析了治疗中使用的双散射质子束计划的各种剂量学终点。对于所有计划,优化了每个射束的剂量分布、角度、涂抹和孔径边缘。为所有患者制定了IMRT计划并同时进行分析。IMRT计划通过多个体积目标、射束加权和单个叶片运动进行优化。患者接受2 Gy等效剂量(GE)的分次照射,总剂量达78 Gy等效剂量,生物学等效剂量为1.1。
接受10 - 80 Gy等效剂量(接受10 - 80 Gy等效剂量的体积百分比[V(10)-V(80)])治疗的所有直肠和直肠壁体积,质子治疗均显著更低(p < 0.05)。直肠V(50)从IMRT时的31.3% ± 4.1%降至质子治疗时的14.6% ± 3.0%,相对改善53.4%,绝对获益16.7%(p < 0.001)。质子治疗使直肠平均剂量降低59%(p < 0.001)。对于膀胱和膀胱壁,质子治疗使接受10 - 35 Gy等效剂量治疗的体积显著更小(p < 0.05),对于接受≤60 Gy等效剂量的体积显示出非显著优势。质子治疗使膀胱V(30)降低,相对改善35.3%,绝对获益15.1%(p = 0.02)。质子治疗使膀胱平均剂量降低35%(p =