Suppr超能文献

基于三钴60磁共振图像引导放射治疗系统与容积调强弧形放疗的肺部立体定向消融放疗对比规划研究

A comparative planning study for lung SABR between tri-Co-60 magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy system and volumetric modulated arc therapy.

作者信息

Park Jong Min, Park So-Yeon, Kim Hak Jae, Wu Hong-Gyun, Carlson Joel, Kim Jung-In

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Center for Convergence Research on Robotics, Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Radiother Oncol. 2016 Aug;120(2):279-85. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.06.013. Epub 2016 Jul 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare the plan quality of tri-(60)Co magnetic-resonance image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) to that of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 22 patients with lung tumors located in the lower lobe were selected retrospectively. For each patient, VMAT plans with linac and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans with the tri-(60)Co system were generated with prescription doses of 60Gy (daily dose=15Gy). For both plan types, identical CT image sets and structures were used, with the exception of planning target volumes (PTV). The PTV for VMAT was generated from the internal target volume (ITV) while the PTV for the tri-(60)Co system was generated from the gross tumor volume (GTV). Clinically relevant dose-volumetric parameters were calculated and analyzed.

RESULTS

The average PTV volumes of tri-(60)Co plans and VMAT plans were 10.5±12.3cc vs. 27.2±23.5cc, respectively (p<0.001). The maximum and mean doses to PTVs were 64.0±2.6Gy vs. 62.5±0.9Gy (p=0.005) and 61.4±1.7Gy vs. 60.0±0.5Gy (p<0.001), respectively. The conformity and homogeneity indices were 1.89±0.38 vs. 1.01±0.40 (p<0.001) and 0.06±0.02 vs. 0.04±0.00 (p<0.001), respectively. No considerable differences for organs at risk (OARs) were observed between tri-(60)Co plans and VMAT plans. In terms of target conformity, integral dose and lung mean dose, the plan quality of tri-(60)Co plans was inferior to that of VMAT plans when the PTV volumes of tri-(60)Co plans were less than 10cc. However, all treatment plans of tri-(60)Co system were clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSION

For lung SABR, the quality of ITV-based VMAT plans was better than that of GTV-based tri-(60)Co plans especially when the PTV volumes of the tri-(60)Co plans were less than 10cc. If the breathing pattern of a patient is reproducible, VMAT is considered the optimal option for lung SABR, otherwise the tri-(60)Co IGRT should be considered due to the ability to monitor tumor motion during treatment.

摘要

背景与目的

比较三钴磁共振图像引导放射治疗(IGRT)与容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)在肺部立体定向消融放疗(SABR)中的计划质量。

材料与方法

回顾性选取22例位于下叶的肺部肿瘤患者。为每位患者生成直线加速器的VMAT计划以及三钴系统的调强放射治疗(IMRT)计划,处方剂量为60Gy(每日剂量 = 15Gy)。对于两种计划类型,除计划靶区(PTV)外,使用相同的CT图像集和结构。VMAT的PTV由内部靶区(ITV)生成,而三钴系统的PTV由大体肿瘤体积(GTV)生成。计算并分析临床相关的剂量体积参数。

结果

三钴计划和VMAT计划的平均PTV体积分别为10.5±12.3cc和27.2±23.5cc(p<0.001)。PTV的最大剂量和平均剂量分别为64.0±2.6Gy和62.5±0.9Gy(p = 0.005),以及61.4±1.7Gy和60.0±0.5Gy(p<0.001)。适形指数和均匀性指数分别为1.89±0.38和1.01±0.40(p<0.001),以及0.06±0.02和0.04±0.00(p<0.001)。三钴计划和VMAT计划在危及器官(OARs)方面未观察到显著差异。在靶区适形性、积分剂量和肺平均剂量方面,当三钴计划的PTV体积小于10cc时,三钴计划的计划质量低于VMAT计划。然而,三钴系统的所有治疗计划在临床上均可接受。

结论

对于肺部SABR,基于ITV的VMAT计划质量优于基于GTV的三钴计划,尤其是当三钴计划的PTV体积小于10cc时。如果患者的呼吸模式可重复,VMAT被认为是肺部SABR的最佳选择,否则应考虑三钴IGRT,因为其在治疗期间能够监测肿瘤运动。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验