Wang Shichao, Gong Youling, Xu Qingfeng, Bai Sen, Lu You, Jiang Qingfeng, Chen Nianyong
Radiation and Physics Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Med Dosim. 2011 Summer;36(2):153-9. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.02.007. Epub 2010 May 21.
We compared the impacts of multileaf collimator (MLC) widths (standard MLC width of 10 mm [SMLC] and micro-MLC width of 4 mm [MMLC]) on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Ten patients with NPC were recruited in this study. In each patient's case, plans were generated with the same machine setup parameter and optimizing methods in a treatment planning system according to 2 commercial Elekta MLC devices. All of the parameters were collected from dose-volume histograms of paired plans and evaluated. The average conformity index (CI) and homogeneous index (HI) for the planning gross target volume in IMRT plans with MMLC were 0.790 ± 0.036 and 1.062 ± 0.011, respectively. Data in plans with SMLC were 0.754 ± 0.038 and 1.070 ± 0.010, respectively. The differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Compared with CI and HI for planning target volume in paired plans, data with MMLC obviously were better than those with SMLC (CI: 0.858 ± 0.026 vs. 0.850 ± 0.021, p < 0.05; and HI: 1.185 ± 0.011 vs. 1.195 ± 0.011, p < 0.05). However, there was no statistical significance between evaluated parameters (Dmean, Dmax, D₅, gEUD, or NTCP) for organs at risk (OARs) in the 2 paired IMRT plans. According to these two kinds of Elekta MLC devices, IMRT plans with the MMLC have significant advantages in dose coverage for the targets, with more efficiency in treatment for NPC but fail to improve dose sparing of the OARs.
我们比较了多叶准直器(MLC)宽度(标准MLC宽度10毫米[SMLC]和微型MLC宽度4毫米[MMLC])对鼻咽癌(NPC)调强放疗(IMRT)计划的影响。本研究招募了10例NPC患者。在每位患者的病例中,根据2种商用医科达MLC设备,在治疗计划系统中使用相同的机器设置参数和优化方法生成计划。所有参数均从配对计划的剂量体积直方图中收集并进行评估。MMLC的IMRT计划中计划大体肿瘤体积的平均适形指数(CI)和均匀性指数(HI)分别为0.790±0.036和1.062±0.011。SMLC计划中的数据分别为0.754±0.038和1.070±0.010。差异具有统计学意义(p<0.05)。与配对计划中计划靶体积的CI和HI相比,MMLC的数据明显优于SMLC(CI:0.858±0.026对0.850±0.021,p<0.05;HI:1.185±0.011对1.195±0.011,p<0.05)。然而,在2个配对的IMRT计划中,危及器官(OAR)的评估参数(平均剂量、最大剂量、D₅、几何平均均匀剂量或正常组织并发症概率)之间没有统计学意义。根据这两种医科达MLC设备,MMLC的IMRT计划在靶区剂量覆盖方面具有显著优势,对NPC的治疗效率更高,但未能改善OAR的剂量 sparing。