Suppr超能文献

使用 Agility 160 叶片准直器评估动态多叶准直器(MLC)与固定多叶准直器在调强放射治疗(IMRT)中的应用。

Evaluation of Dynamic Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) versus Fixed MLC for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Using the Agility 160-Leaf Collimator.

机构信息

Radiotherapy Department, National Cancer Institute, Shefaa Alorman Hospital, Egypt.

Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Aswan University, Egypt.

出版信息

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024 Jul 1;25(7):2467-2474. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.7.2467.

Abstract

AIM

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that dIMRT provides improved target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity while reducing treatment delivery time compared to ssIMRT.

摘要

目的

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。

材料和方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2cde/11480600/59e581b0efe9/APJCP-25-2467-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验