检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:杨岩丽[1] 李宝生[2] 尹勇[3] 陈进琥[3] 孙涛[3] 孙洪福[2]
机构地区:[1]山东铝业公司医院肿瘤科,淄博255052 [2]山东省肿瘤医院放疗六科 [3]山东省肿瘤医院物理室
出 处:《中华放射医学与防护杂志》2012年第1期65-69,共5页Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
基 金:国家自然科学基金(30670617)
摘 要:目的比较胸段食管癌3种放疗技术(3D—CRT、IMRT、RapidArc)的剂量学特点,并分析3种技术的优劣及应用特点。方法15例胸段食管癌患者入组,依据CT图像,勾画靶区,针对患者的同一套CT图像的相同靶区分别制定3D—CRT、5野IMRT(IMRT5)、7野IMRT(IMRT7)、9野IMRT(IMRT9)、单弧Arc(Arcl)、双弧Arc(Arc2)共6套计划。PTV处方剂量为40Gy分20次4周+19.6Gy分14次7d。结果3D—CRT计划各项靶区剂量学参数明显差于IMRT计划及RapidArc计划(t=5.77、3.52,P〈0.05),6套计划的PTV‰(%)分别为:3D-CRT(91.55±2.90),IMRT5(96.66±1.05),IMRT7(96.87±1.23),IMRT(96.81±1.16),Arcl(94.98±1.41),Arc2(95.93±1.32)。RapidArc计划的靶区适形度(CI)最好(t=3.76,10.01,P〈0.05),IMRT计划的靶区均匀性(HI)最好(t=3.93、3.37,P〈0.05)。危及器官参数RapidArc与IMRT各计划之间差异无统计学意义。3D—CRT和RapidArc计划的机器跳数明显少于IMRT计划,差异高达75%。结论对于胸段食管癌患者,采用IMRT或RapidArc技术可以在保护正常组织的同时,涵盖临床必需的治疗靶区。3D—CRT计划对降低正常组织低剂量散射区方面优势明显。RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势。Objective To compare the dosimetric characteristics of intensity-modulated arc therapy( IMAT ), fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy ( IMRT ) and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for the thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods A total of 15 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer were enrolled. 3D-CRT, 5-field IMRT( IMRTS), 7-field IMRT( IMRTT), 9-field IMRT (IMRT9) , single arc( Arc1 ) and double arc (Arc2) RapidArc plans were generated for each patient. AU plans were prescribed 40 Gy in 20 fractions and 19.6 Gy in 14 fractions to PTV at 95% isodose line. Results RapidArc and all IMRT treatment plans in dosimetric parameters of target volumes were obviously better compared to 3-dimenfional conformal treatments( t = 5.77,3.52 ,P 〈 0. 05). The result of Vg of PTV for 3D-CRT, IMRTS, IMRTT, IMRTg, Arcl and Arc2 plans was 91.55±2. 90, 96. 66±1.05, 96. 87 ±1.23, 96. 81 ± 1.16, 94. 98 ±1.41 and 95.93 ± 1.32, respectively. The best conformation index in PTV was observed in the RapidArc plans( t = 3.76,10. 01 ,P 〈 0. 05 ) , and the best homogeneity index in PTV was observed in the IMRT plans( t = 3.93,3.37 ,P 〈 0. 05 ). In terms of organ sparing, no statistical difference was observed between IMRT and RapidArc plans( P 〉 0. 05 ) , while 3D-CRT provided the lowest number of Vl oGyand V5 oct for total lung. Compared with the IMRT treatment plans, the number of monitor units was lower in all 3 D-CRT and RapidArc cases with differences of 75%. Conclusions All the IMRT and RapidArc plans could offer high quality treatment for patients. 3D-CRT might show advantage in low-dose region to organs at risk. Compared with IMRT, no obvious advantage in PTV dosimetric parameters could be observed in RapidArc plans.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.217.252.137