宫颈癌放疗中的快速旋转调强计划和调强计划比较  

Comparison of RapidArc plans and fixed field intensity modulated radiotherapy planning in cervical cancer radiotherapy

作　　者：刘翔宇[1] 柳先锋[1] 何亚男[1] 尹文娟[1] 吴永忠[1] 

机构地区：[1]重庆市肿瘤研究所放疗科,400030

出　　处：《中华放射医学与防护杂志》2011年第3期326-328,共3页Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection

摘　　要：目的探讨快速旋转调强（RapidArc）计划和固定野调强计划（IMRT）的优劣。方法选择10例宫颈癌病例，在Eclipse8．6计划系统上分别对其进行单弧、双弧及三弧RapidArc和固定野调强放疗计划设计，依次分别用Arc1、Arc2、Arc3和IMRT表示。比较4者的计划制作及治疗时间、靶区及危及器官剂量分布差异。结果10例病例的Arc1、Arc2、Arc3和IMRT计划设计时间平均值分别为112、131、154和46min，在瓦里安IX加速器上的治疗时间平均值分别为2．15、3．32、4．48和6．95min，平均剂量分别为48．99、49．40、49．51和48．65Gy，靶区均匀指数分别为1．11、1．07、1．06和1．12，靶区适形指数分别为0．73、0．87、0．87和0．79。IMRT计划的直肠、膀胱和小肠等危及器官受量最小，4种计划的股骨颈受量相似。结论RapidArc计划在靶区剂量分布、均匀度、适形度以及治疗时间方面占优势，IMRT计划在计划的剂量计算时间和危及器官的保护方面占优势。总体临床应用上RapidArc计划优于IMRT计划。Objective To explore the advantages and disadvantages between the RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan （IMRT）. Methods Ten cases of cervical cancer, aged 55 （36 -70）, who were to receive post-operative radiotherapy were selected randomly. Single arc （ Arc 1 ）, two arcs （ Arc 2）, and three arc （Arc 3 ） RapidArc plans and fixed-field IMRT plan were designed respectively in the Eclipse 8.6 planning system. The designing, treatment time, target area, and dose distribution of organs at risk by these 4 planning techniques were compared. Results The values of average planned treatment time by the Arc 1, Arc 2, and Arc 3 ten cases was 98, 155, 185, and 46 rain, respectively. The values of average treatment time in the Varian IX accelerator were 2. 15, 3.32, 4.48, and 6.95 min, respectively. The average mean doses were （ 48.99 ± 1.08 ） , （49.40 ±0. 51 ）, （ 49.51 ±0.62 ）, and （ 48.65 ± 0.92 ） Gy, respectively. The values of homogeneity index （HI） of target were 1.11 ± 0.07, 1.07 ± 0. 02, 1.06 ± 0, 02, and 1.12 ± 0. 05, respectively, The values of conformal index （CI） of target were 0. 73 ± 0. 13, 0. 87 ± 0. 06, 0.87 ±0.06, and 0. 79 ± 0.06, respectively. The doses at rectum, bladder, and small intestine calculated by IMRT plan were the lowest, and the doses at the femoral neck calculated by these 4 plans were similar. Conclusions The RapidAre plan is superior in dose distribution at target, HI, CI, and treatment time to IMRT, but IMRT plan is superior to RapidAre in planned dose calculation time and protection of organs at risk. However, in general, the RapidArc plan is better in clinical application than IMRT plan.

关 键 词：宫颈肿瘤 放射疗法 治疗计划 快速旋转调强 调强放疗 

分 类 号：R737.33[医药卫生—肿瘤]