鼻咽癌动态调强与静态调强放疗的比较  

Comparison of the Dynamic and Static IMRT for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

作　　者：肖锋[1] 孙朝阳[1] 石梅[1] 张学成[1] 刘晓莉[1] 陆宙[1] 胡明民[1] 

机构地区：[1]第四军医大学西京医院放疗科,陕西西安710032

出　　处：《中国医学物理学杂志》2008年第4期719-722,743,共5页Chinese Journal of Medical Physics

摘　　要：目的:比较鼻咽癌动态调强与静态调强放疗计划设计与执行及剂量分布的区别。方法:记录从计划到实施的全过程以比较动态调强与静态调强实施难易程度及耗时长短。分别比较两者的靶区及危及器官的剂量分布差异。分别对两者进行剂量学验证,比较两者剂量验证结果的差异。结果:两者从计划到实施的方法、难易程度均相同;动态调强各个靶区的适形度、均匀度均优于或等于静态调强,静态调强的子野越多适形度、均匀度越好。各个危及器官受量大部分相同,但两侧腮腺平均剂量静态调强略小于动态调强,且静态调强的子野越少腮腺平均剂量越低。两者的剂量学验证结果基本一致。静态调强治疗时间略长于动态调强。结论:动态调强靶区剂量分布优于静态调强,静态调强子野越多靶区剂量分布越好。两者的危及器官受量大体相当,静态调强似乎更有利于保护腮腺等正常器官。总体上讲,鼻咽癌动态调强放疗略优于静态调强。Objective： To compare the dynamic IMRT （sliding window, D-IMRT） with the static one （step and shot, S-IMRT） on nasopharyngeal carcinoma case. Methods： Wrote down from the procedure of planning to implementing in order to compare the D-IMRT with the S-IMRT to study that which one will costs more effort and time. Compared the different of dose distribution at target and organs at risk （OAR）, verified dose distribution, compared the different results. Results： There was no difference in the whole procedure from planning to implementing and took the same effort to do same work. The conformity and the uniformity of the D-IMRT were better than the S-IMRT. The more Intensity Levels the better the conformity and the uniformity of the S-IMRT. The dose of each OAR was almost at the same degree, but the average dose of the parotids in the S-I MRT was lower than that in the D-IMRT, and the less the Intensity Levels the lower the average dose in the S-IMRT. The verification results of the two IMRT were consistent. It took a little more time to implement the S-IMRT. Conclusions： The dose distil bution of the field in the D-IMRT was prior to the S-IMRT. The more Intensity Levels the better the dose distribution of the field in the S-IMRT. It seemed that using the S-IMRT would do more favor to protect the normal tissues, such as： parotids.

关 键 词：动态调强 静态调强 剂量分布 剂量验证 鼻咽癌 

分 类 号：R851[医药卫生—航空、航天与航海医学]