Suppr超能文献

单次分割脊柱 SBRT 的 VMAT 和步进-射击 IMRT 投递技术的治疗计划:基于体模的剂量学比较分析和质量保证测量。

Treatment planning of VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT delivery techniques for single fraction spine SBRT: An intercomparative dosimetric analysis and phantom-based quality assurance measurements.

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

出版信息

J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jan;21(1):62-68. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12788. Epub 2019 Dec 10.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare clinically treated step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans in dosimetric endpoints and pretreatment quality assurance (QA) measurements.

METHODS

Five single fraction spine SBRT (18 Gy) cases - including one cervical, two thoracic, and two lumbar spines - clinically treated with ssIMRT were replanned with VMAT, and all plans were delivered to a phantom for comparing plan quality and delivery accuracy. Furthermore, we analyzed 98 clinically treated plans (18 Gy single fraction), including 34 ssIMRT and 29 VMAT for cervical/thoracic spine, and 19 ssIMRT and 16 VMAT for lumbar spine. The conformality index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were calculated, and QA measurement records were compared. For the spinal cord/cauda equina, the maximum dose to 0.03 cc (D ) and volume receiving 10 or 12 Gy (V /V ) were recorded. Statistical significance was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Compared to ssIMRT, replanned VMAT plans had lower V /V and D to the spinal cord/cauda equina in all five cases, and better CI in three out of five cases. The VMAT replans were slightly less homogeneous than those of ssIMRT plans. Both modalities passed IMRT QA with >95% passing rate with (3%, 3 mm) gamma criteria. With the 98 clinical cases, for cervical/thoracic ssIMRT and VMAT plans, the median V of spinal cord was 4.15% and 1.85% (P = 0.004); the median D of spinal cord was 10.85 Gy and 10.10 Gy (P = 0.032); the median CI was 1.28 and 1.08 (P = 0.009); the median HI were 1.34 and 1.33 (P = 0.697), respectively. For lumbar spine, no significant dosimetric endpoint differences were observed. The two modalities were comparable in delivery accuracy.

CONCLUSION

From our clinically treated plans, we found that VMAT plans provided better dosimetric quality and comparable delivery accuracy when compared to ssIMRT for single fraction spine SBRT.

摘要

目的

回顾性比较临床治疗的步进射击强度调制放疗(ssIMRT)和容积调制弧形治疗(VMAT)脊柱立体定向体部放疗(SBRT)计划在剂量学终点和治疗前质量保证(QA)测量方面的差异。

方法

对 5 例临床治疗的单次分割脊柱 SBRT(18 Gy)病例(包括 1 例颈椎、2 例胸椎和 2 例腰椎)进行 ssIMRT 再计划,并将所有计划交付给体模以比较计划质量和输送准确性。此外,我们分析了 98 例临床治疗计划(18 Gy 单次分割),包括 34 例 ssIMRT 和 29 例用于颈椎/胸椎的 VMAT,以及 19 例 ssIMRT 和 16 例用于腰椎的 VMAT。计算了适形指数(CI)和均匀性指数(HI),并比较了 QA 测量记录。对于脊髓/马尾,记录了 0.03cc(D )的最大剂量和 10 或 12Gy(V/V)的体积。采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行统计学显著性检验。

结果

与 ssIMRT 相比,在所有 5 例病例中,再计划的 VMAT 计划的 V/V 和脊髓/马尾的 D 较低,在 3 例病例中具有更好的 CI。VMAT 再计划的均匀性略低于 ssIMRT 计划。两种模式均通过 IMRT QA,γ标准通过率均>95%(3%,3mm)。对于颈椎/胸椎的 ssIMRT 和 VMAT 计划,98 例临床病例中,脊髓的中位 V 分别为 4.15%和 1.85%(P=0.004);脊髓的中位 D 分别为 10.85 Gy 和 10.10 Gy(P=0.032);中位 CI 分别为 1.28 和 1.08(P=0.009);中位 HI 分别为 1.34 和 1.33(P=0.697)。对于腰椎,未观察到显著的剂量学终点差异。两种模式在输送精度方面具有可比性。

结论

从我们的临床治疗计划中,我们发现与单次分割脊柱 SBRT 的 ssIMRT 相比,VMAT 计划在单次分割脊柱 SBRT 中提供了更好的剂量学质量和可比的输送精度。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c93b/6964769/13f6e4362afb/ACM2-21-62-g001.jpg

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