Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Apr;76(5):1554-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.003.
A dosimetric comparison of multiple static-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), multiarc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), and single-arc arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT) was performed to evaluate their clinical advantages and shortcomings.
Twelve cases were selected for this study, including three head-and-neck, three brain, three lung, and three prostate cases. An IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT plan was generated for each of the cases, with clinically relevant planning constraints. For a fair comparison, the same parameters were used for the IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT planning for each patient.
Multiarc IMAT provided the best plan quality, while single-arc AMRT achieved dose distributions comparable to those of IMRT, especially in the complicated head-and-neck and brain cases. Both AMRT and IMAT showed effective normal tissue sparing without compromising target coverage and delivered a lower total dose to the surrounding normal tissues in some cases.
IMAT provides the most uniform and conformal dose distributions, especially for the cases with large and complex targets, but with a delivery time similar to that of IMRT; whereas AMRT achieves results comparable to IMRT with significantly faster treatment delivery.
对多种静态强度调制放射治疗（IMRT）、多弧强度调制弧治疗（IMAT）和单弧调强放射治疗（AMRT）进行剂量学比较，以评估它们的临床优缺点。
本研究选择了 12 例患者，包括 3 例头颈部、3 例脑部、3 例肺部和 3 例前列腺病例。为每个病例生成了 IMRT、IMAT 和 AMRT 计划，并满足临床相关的计划限制。为了进行公平比较，为每个患者的 IMRT、IMAT 和 AMRT 计划使用了相同的参数。
多弧 IMAT 提供了最佳的计划质量，而单弧 AMRT 实现了与 IMRT 相当的剂量分布，特别是在复杂的头颈部和脑部病例中。AMRT 和 IMAT 都显示出有效的正常组织保护，同时不影响靶区覆盖，并在某些情况下将周围正常组织的总剂量降低。
IMAT 提供了最均匀和最适形的剂量分布，特别是对于大而复杂的靶区，但与 IMRT 的治疗时间相似；而 AMRT 以明显更快的治疗速度实现了与 IMRT 相当的结果。
