Savanović Milovan, Jaroš Dražan, Foulquier Jean Noel
Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, Paris, France.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tenon Hospital, APHP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
J Med Phys. 2021 Apr-Jun;46(2):73-79. doi: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_81_20. Epub 2021 Aug 7.
This study compared phase-gated and amplitude-gated dose deliveries to the moving gross tumor volume (GTV) in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using Gafchromic External Beam Therapy (EBT3) dosimetry film.
Eighty treatment plans using two techniques (40 phase gated and 40 amplitude gated) were delivered using dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT). The GTV motion, breathing amplitude, and period were taken from 40 lung SBRT patients who performed regular breathing. These parameters were re-simulated using a modified Varian breathing mini phantom. The dosimetric accuracy of the phase- and amplitude-gated treatment plans was analyzed using Gafchromic EBT3 dosimetry film. The treatment delivery efficacy was analyzed for gantry rotation, number of monitor unit (MU), and target position per triggering window. The time required to deliver the phase- and amplitude-gated treatment techniques was also evaluated.
The mean dose (range) per fraction was 16.11 ± 0.91 Gy (13.04-17.50 Gy) versus 16.26 ± 0.83 Gy (13.82-17.99 Gy) ( < 0.0001) for phase- and amplitude-gated delivery. The greater difference in the gamma passing rate was 1.2% ±0.4% in the amplitude-gated compared to the phase gated. The gantry rotation per triggering time (tt) was 2° ±1° (1.2°-3°) versus 5° ±1° (3°-6°) ( < 0.0001) and MU per tt was 10 ± 3 MU (6-13 MU) versus 24 ± 7 MU (12-32 MU) ( < 0.0001), for phase- versus amplitude-gated techniques. A 90 beam interruption in the phase-gated technique impacted the treatment delivery efficacy, increasing the treatment delivery time in the phase gated for 1664 ± 202 s 1353-1942 s) compared to 36 interruptions in the amplitude gated 823 ± 79 s (712-926 s) ( < 0.0001).
Amplitude-gated DCAT allows for better dosimetric accuracy over phase-gated treatment patients with regular breathing patterns.
本研究使用Gafchromic外照射治疗(EBT3)剂量测定薄膜,比较了在肺部立体定向体部放射治疗(SBRT)中,对移动的大体肿瘤体积(GTV)进行相位门控和幅度门控剂量输送的情况。
使用动态适形弧形治疗(DCAT)实施了80个采用两种技术(40个相位门控和40个幅度门控)的治疗计划。GTV运动、呼吸幅度和周期取自40例进行正常呼吸的肺部SBRT患者。使用改良的Varian呼吸小型体模对这些参数进行了重新模拟。使用Gafchromic EBT3剂量测定薄膜分析了相位门控和幅度门控治疗计划的剂量测定准确性。分析了机架旋转、监测单位(MU)数量和每个触发窗口的靶区位置的治疗输送效率。还评估了实施相位门控和幅度门控治疗技术所需的时间。
相位门控和幅度门控输送的每次分割平均剂量(范围)分别为16.11±0.91 Gy(13.04 - 17.50 Gy)和16.26±0.83 Gy(13.82 - 17.99 Gy)(P < 0.0001)。与相位门控相比,幅度门控的伽马通过率的更大差异为1.2%±0.4%。对于相位门控和幅度门控技术,每次触发时间(tt)的机架旋转分别为2°±1°(1.2° - 3°)和5°±1°(3° - 6°)(P < 0.0001),每次tt的MU分别为10±3 MU(6 - 13 MU)和24±7 MU(12 - 32 MU)(P < 0.0001)。相位门控技术中的90次束流中断影响了治疗输送效率,与幅度门控中的36次中断相比,相位门控的治疗输送时间增加到1664±202秒(1353 - 1942秒),而幅度门控为823±79秒(712 - 926秒)(P < 0.0001)。
对于呼吸模式正常的患者,幅度门控DCAT比相位门控治疗具有更好的剂量测定准确性。