Suppr超能文献

英国心脏保护研究:对接受乳腺癌放疗的女性进行自愿深吸气屏气的随机评估。

The UK HeartSpare Study: randomised evaluation of voluntary deep-inspiratory breath-hold in women undergoing breast radiotherapy.

作者信息

Bartlett Frederick R, Colgan Ruth M, Carr Karen, Donovan Ellen M, McNair Helen A, Locke Imogen, Evans Philip M, Haviland Joanne S, Yarnold John R, Kirby Anna M

机构信息

Department of Academic Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.

出版信息

Radiother Oncol. 2013 Aug;108(2):242-7. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.04.021. Epub 2013 May 29.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine whether voluntary deep-inspiratory breath-hold (v_DIBH) and deep-inspiratory breath-hold with the active breathing coordinator™ (ABC_DIBH) in patients undergoing left breast radiotherapy are comparable in terms of normal-tissue sparing, positional reproducibility and feasibility of delivery.

METHODS

Following surgery for early breast cancer, patients underwent planning-CT scans in v_DIBH and ABC_DIBH. Patients were randomised to receive one technique for fractions 1-7 and the second technique for fractions 8-15 (40 Gy/15 fractions total). Daily electronic portal imaging (EPI) was performed and matched to digitally-reconstructed radiographs. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) images were acquired for 6/15 fractions and matched to planning-CT data. Population systematic (Σ) and random errors (σ) were estimated. Heart, left-anterior-descending coronary artery, and lung doses were calculated. Patient comfort, radiographer satisfaction and scanning/treatment times were recorded. Within-patient comparisons between the two techniques used the paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were recruited. All completed treatment with both techniques. EPI-derived Σ were ≤ 1.8mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 2.0mm (ABC_DIBH) and σ ≤ 2.5mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 2.2mm (ABC_DIBH) (all p non-significant). CBCT-derived Σ were ≤ 3.9 mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 4.9 mm (ABC_DIBH) and σ ≤ 4.1mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 3.8mm (ABC_DIBH). There was no significant difference between techniques in terms of normal-tissue doses (all p non-significant). Patients and radiographers preferred v_DIBH (p=0.007, p=0.03, respectively). Scanning/treatment setup times were shorter for v_DIBH (p=0.02, p=0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

v_DIBH and ABC_DIBH are comparable in terms of positional reproducibility and normal tissue sparing. v_DIBH is preferred by patients and radiographers, takes less time to deliver, and is cheaper than ABC_DIBH.

摘要

目的

确定在接受左乳放疗的患者中,自主深吸气屏气(v_DIBH)与使用主动呼吸协调器™(ABC_DIBH)进行深吸气屏气在正常组织保护、位置重复性和实施可行性方面是否具有可比性。

方法

早期乳腺癌患者术后,分别在v_DIBH和ABC_DIBH状态下进行计划CT扫描。患者被随机分配,在第1 - 7次分割放疗中接受一种技术,在第8 - 15次分割放疗中接受另一种技术(总计40 Gy/15次分割)。每日进行电子射野成像(EPI),并与数字重建射线照片匹配。在15次分割中的6次获取锥束CT(CBCT)图像,并与计划CT数据匹配。估计总体系统误差(Σ)和随机误差(σ)。计算心脏、左前降支冠状动脉和肺部的剂量。记录患者舒适度、放射技师满意度以及扫描/治疗时间。两种技术在患者内的比较采用配对t检验或Wilcoxon符号秩检验。

结果

招募了23名患者。所有患者均完成了两种技术的治疗。EPI得出的Σ在v_DIBH中≤1.8mm,在ABC_DIBH中≤2.0mm,σ在v_DIBH中≤2.5mm,在ABC_DIBH中≤2.2mm(所有p值均无统计学意义)。CBCT得出的Σ在v_DIBH中≤3.9mm,在ABC_DIBH中≤4.9mm;σ在v_DIBH中≤4.1mm,在ABC_DIBH中≤3.8mm。两种技术在正常组织剂量方面无显著差异(所有p值均无统计学意义)。患者和放射技师更倾向于v_DIBH(分别为p = =0.007,p = 0.03)。v_DIBH的扫描/治疗设置时间更短(分别为p = 0.02,p = 0.04)。

结论

v_DIBH和ABC_DIBH在位置重复性和正常组织保护方面具有可比性。v_DIBH更受患者和放射技师青睐,实施时间更短,且比ABC_DIBH成本更低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验