Jin Xiance, Yi Jinling, Zhou Yongqiang, Yan Huawei, Han Ce, Xie Congying
Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, The 1st Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China.
Med Dosim. 2013 Winter;38(4):418-23. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.05.004. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
To study the feasibility of using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver whole-field simultaneous integrated boost (WF-SIB) to treat patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). WF-SIB intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans, one-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans, and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans were generated with identical objective functions for 8 patients with NPC of various stages. Isodose distributions and dose-volume histograms were evaluated. Dosimetric and biological quality indices of clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were calculated to study the optimization capability of these 3 modalities in the treatment of patients with NPC. The optimization time, delivery time, required monitor units (MUs), and delivery accuracy were also compared to investigate the feasibility of these 3 modalities. There was no significant difference (p = 0.92) in target coverage (TC) between WF-SIB IMRT (99.00 ± 0.79) and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT (97.98 ± 1.29). However, both had higher TC than one-arc VMAT plans (89.92 ± 6.32, p < 0.01). IMRT demonstrated the best protection of the spinal cord, whereas two-arc VMAT showed the minimum Dmax to OARs. No other significant differences were observed among these 3 modalities on CTV coverage and OAR sparing. The delivery and MU efficiency of one-arc and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT were greatly improved compared with WF-SIB IMRT. The optimization time of one-arc and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans were 5 and 10 times greater than that of WF-SIB IMRT, respectively. The delivery accuracy of WF-SIB VMAT was not affected by the increased freedom. For patients with NPC, one-arc WF-SIB VMAT might not be able to achieve sufficient TC, whereas two-arc WF-SIB VMAT was able to achieve reasonable TC. No significant advantage on OAR protection was demonstrated by VMAT compared with IMRT. WF-SIB VMAT has significantly shorter delivery times, but WF-SIB IMRT may still be the first treatment choice for patients with NPC.
研究采用容积调强弧形放疗(VMAT)实施全野同步整合加量(WF-SIB)治疗鼻咽癌(NPC)患者的可行性。为8例不同分期的NPC患者生成具有相同目标函数的WF-SIB调强放疗(IMRT)计划、单弧WF-SIB VMAT计划和双弧WF-SIB VMAT计划。评估等剂量分布和剂量体积直方图。计算临床靶区(CTV)和危及器官(OARs)的剂量学和生物学质量指标,以研究这三种模式在NPC患者治疗中的优化能力。还比较了优化时间、照射时间、所需监测单位(MU)和照射精度,以探讨这三种模式的可行性。WF-SIB IMRT(99.00±0.79)与双弧WF-SIB VMAT(97.98±1.29)之间的靶区覆盖(TC)无显著差异(p = 0.92)。然而,两者的TC均高于单弧VMAT计划(89.92±6.32,p < 0.01)。IMRT对脊髓的保护效果最佳,而双弧VMAT对OARs的Dmax最小。在CTV覆盖和OAR保护方面,这三种模式之间未观察到其他显著差异。与WF-SIB IMRT相比,单弧和双弧WF-SIB VMAT的照射和MU效率有了很大提高。单弧和双弧WF-SIB VMAT计划的优化时间分别比WF-SIB IMRT长5倍和10倍。WF-SIB VMAT的照射精度不受自由度增加的影响。对于NPC患者,单弧WF-SIB VMAT可能无法实现足够的TC,而双弧WF-SIB VMAT能够实现合理的TC。与IMRT相比,VMAT在OAR保护方面未显示出显著优势。WF-SIB VMAT的照射时间明显更短,但WF-SIB IMRT可能仍然是NPC患者的首选治疗方式。