Tsai Yi-Chun, Tsai Chiao-Ling, Hsu Feng-Ming, Jian-Kuen Wu, Chien-Jang Wu, Cheng Jason Chia-Hsien
Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Med Dosim. 2013 Winter;38(4):366-71. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.04.003. Epub 2013 Jun 14.
Compared with step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) and tomotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows additional arc configurations in treatment planning and noncoplanar (NC) delivery. This study was first to compare VMAT planning with sIMRT planning, and the second to evaluate the toxicity of coplanar (C)/NC-VMAT treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Fifteen patients with HCC (7 with left-lobe and 8 with right-lobe tumors) were planned with C-VMAT, C/NC-VMAT, and sIMRT. The median total dose was 49Gy (range: 40 to 56Gy), whereas the median fractional dose was 3.5Gy (range: 3 to 8Gy). Different doses/fractionations were converted to normalized doses of 2Gy per fraction using an α/β ratio of 2.5. The mean liver dose, volume fraction receiving more than 10Gy (V10), 20Gy (V20), 30Gy (V30), effective volume (Veff), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) were compared. C/NC-VMAT in 6 patients was evaluated for delivery accuracy and treatment-related toxicity. Compared with sIMRT, both C-VMAT (p = 0.001) and C/NC-VMAT (p = 0.03) had significantly improved target conformity index. Compared with C-VMAT and sIMRT, C/NC-VMAT for treating left-lobe tumors provided significantly better liver sparing as evidenced by differences in mean liver dose (p = 0.03 and p = 0.007), V10 (p = 0.003 and p = 0.009), V20 (p = 0.006 and p = 0.01), V30 (p = 0.02 and p = 0.002), Veff (p = 0.006 and p = 0.001), and EUD (p = 0.04 and p = 0.003), respectively. For right-lobe tumors, there was no difference in liver sparing between C/NC-VMAT, C-VMAT, and sIMRT. In all patients, dose to more than 95% of target points met the 3%/3mm criteria. All 6 patients tolerated C/NC-VMAT and none of them had treatment-related ≥ grade 2 toxicity. The C/NC-VMAT can be used clinically for HCC and provides significantly better liver sparing in patients with left-lobe tumors.
与静态调强放射治疗(sIMRT)和断层放疗相比,容积调强弧形放疗(VMAT)在治疗计划和非共面(NC)照射方面允许更多的弧形配置。本研究首先比较VMAT计划与sIMRT计划,其次评估共面(C)/NC-VMAT治疗肝细胞癌(HCC)患者的毒性。15例HCC患者(7例左叶肿瘤和8例右叶肿瘤)接受了C-VMAT、C/NC-VMAT和sIMRT计划。中位总剂量为49Gy(范围:40至56Gy),而中位分次剂量为3.5Gy(范围:3至8Gy)。使用α/β比值2.5将不同的剂量/分割转换为每分次2Gy的归一化剂量。比较了平均肝脏剂量、接受超过10Gy(V10)、20Gy(V20)、30Gy(V30)的体积分数、有效体积(Veff)和等效均匀剂量(EUD)。对6例患者的C/NC-VMAT进行了照射准确性和治疗相关毒性评估。与sIMRT相比,C-VMAT(p = 0.001)和C/NC-VMAT(p = 0.03)的靶区适形指数均有显著改善。与C-VMAT和sIMRT相比,C/NC-VMAT治疗左叶肿瘤时肝脏保护效果明显更好,平均肝脏剂量(p = 0.03和p = 0.007)、V10(p = 0.003和p = 0.009)、V20(p = 0.006和p = 0.01)、V30(p = 0.02和p = 0.002)、Veff(p = 0.006和p = 0.001)和EUD(p = 0.04和p = 0.003)的差异分别证明了这一点。对于右叶肿瘤,C/NC-VMAT、C-VMAT和sIMRT在肝脏保护方面没有差异。在所有患者中,超过95%的靶区剂量点符合3%/3mm标准。所有6例患者均耐受C/NC-VMAT,且均无治疗相关的≥2级毒性。C/NC-VMAT可临床用于HCC治疗,并且在左叶肿瘤患者中能提供明显更好的肝脏保护。