Radiotherapy Department, National Cancer Institute, Shefaa Alorman Hospital, Egypt.
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Aswan University, Egypt.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024 Jul 1;25(7):2467-2474. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.7.2467.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of static or step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT) and dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) delivery techniques for various treatment sites.
The treatment planning system (TPS) was utilized to develop optimal treatment plans for twenty-seven patients selected for this comparative study, including nine with head and neck cancer, nine with prostate cancer, and nine with cervical cancer. The prescribed doses were 7000cGy/33fr, 7425cGy/33fr, and 5000cGy/25fr for the nasopharynx, prostate, and cervix cases, respectively, in both ssIMRT and dIMRT delivery techniques. Plans were generated using the Monaco treatment planning system with a 6MV photon beam and nine equidistant fields. Plan evaluation criteria included dose-volume histogram analysis, dose homogeneity index, conformity index, radiation delivery time, and monitor unit requirements.
All plans were optimized to ensure that 98% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 95% of the prescribed dose, while meeting the planning objectives for organs at risk. dIMRT plans exhibited superior conformity (CI = 0.85 ± 0.05) compared to ssIMRT plans (CI = 0.79 ± 0.08), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01). Inhomogeneity within the PTV was significantly higher in ssIMRT plans (HI = 0.10 ± 0.02) compared to dIMRT plans (HI = 0.09 ± 0.01), with a significant difference (P < 0.01). Delivery time per fraction was significantly lower in dIMRT compared to ssIMRT (P < 0.01). Furthermore, dIMRT plans required a higher mean monitor unit value (1335.4 ± 172.2) compared to ssIMRT plans (974.4 ± 133.6) with a significant difference (P < 0.001).
The findings of this study indicate that dIMRT provides improved target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity while reducing treatment delivery time compared to ssIMRT.
本研究旨在评估静态或步进式调强放疗(ssIMRT)和动态调强放疗(dIMRT)在不同治疗部位的疗效。
利用治疗计划系统(TPS)为 27 名患者制定最佳治疗计划,这些患者被选为这项对比研究的对象,包括 9 名头颈部癌症患者、9 名前列腺癌患者和 9 名宫颈癌患者。规定的剂量分别为鼻咽部 7000cGy/33fr、前列腺部 7425cGy/33fr 和宫颈部 5000cGy/25fr,在 ssIMRT 和 dIMRT 两种放疗技术中均使用 6MV 光子束和 9 个等距野。计划采用 Monaco 治疗计划系统生成,评价指标包括剂量体积直方图分析、剂量均匀性指数、适形性指数、放射治疗时间和监测器单位需求。
所有计划均经过优化,以确保 98%的计划靶体积(PTV)接受至少 95%的规定剂量,同时满足危及器官的计划目标。dIMRT 计划的适形性(CI = 0.85 ± 0.05)优于 ssIMRT 计划(CI = 0.79 ± 0.08),差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。PTV 内不均匀性在 ssIMRT 计划中显著较高(HI = 0.10 ± 0.02),而在 dIMRT 计划中显著较低(HI = 0.09 ± 0.01),差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。每个射野的治疗时间 dIMRT 显著低于 ssIMRT(P < 0.01)。此外,dIMRT 计划的平均监测器单位值(1335.4 ± 172.2)显著高于 ssIMRT 计划(974.4 ± 133.6),差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。
本研究结果表明,与 ssIMRT 相比,dIMRT 可提高靶区覆盖率、均匀性和适形性,同时缩短治疗时间。