MONACO放疗计划系统VMAT计划照射野Arc数目对治疗计划影响的比较分析  

Comparative Analysis of the Effect of Arcs per Beam of VMAT on the Treatment Plan in MONACO Treatment Planning System

作　　者：薛涛[1] 何晓阳 孙云川[1] 刘光波[1] 王斌[1] 刘志坤[1] 闫慧娟[1] 周丽霞[1] 王珮烨 XUE Tao;HE Xiaoyang;SUN Yunchuan;LIU Guangbo;WANG Bin;LIU Zhikun;YAN Huijuan;ZHOU Lixia;WANG Peiye(Department of Radiotherapy,Cangzhou Hospital of Integrated TCM-WM Hebei,Cangzhou Hebei 061000,China;Department of Intrarenal and Urology,Cangzhou People’s Hospital(Medical College Campus),Cangzhou Hebei 061000,China)

机构地区：[1]河北省沧州中西医结合医院放射物理治疗科,河北沧州061000 [2]沧州市人民医院医专院区肾内泌尿科,河北沧州061000

出　　处：《中国医疗设备》2019年第9期74-76,84,共4页China Medical Devices

摘　　要：目的评价MONACO治疗计划系统中VMAT计划照射野不同Arc数目对剂量分布、计划执行以及剂量验证通过率的影响。方法对接受治疗32例宫颈癌患者进行了回顾性分析,原执行治疗的计划为设置两个射野,每个射野1个Arc(1 Arc Per Beam,1APB),在原治疗计划轮廓勾画和参数约束相同的情况下,将照射野参数改为一个射野,每个射野2个Arc(2 Arc Per Beam,2APB)。计划在保证靶区100%体积接受95%处方剂量的标准下,对靶区的适形指数、均匀指数,危及器官的受照剂量,治疗计划的机器跳数和控制点数以及治疗计划的执行时间和剂量验证通过率进行评估。结果两种计划靶区的适形指数和均匀指数均值相近,危及器官受照剂量均值相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与1APB计划相比,2APB计划的机器跳数和控制点数明显减少(P<0.05);在计划执行方面,2APB计划比1APB计划的实施时间明显缩短(P<0.05);而在两种计划的剂量输出验证方面,剂量通过率相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种治疗计划的剂量学差异相近,均能满足临床要求,但是2APB计划比1APB计划的执行效率有大幅提升,可在减少治疗机损耗的基础上提升了整体工作效率。Objective To evaluate the effect of Arc per beam of VMAT on dose distribution,plan execution and pass rate of dose verification in MONACO treatment planning system.Methods A total of 32 patients with cervical cancer were retrospectively analyzed.In the original treatment plan,there were two beams with 1 Arc per beam(1APB).Under the same contour outline and parameter constraints with the original treatment plan,the radiation field parameter was changed to one beam with two Arc per beam(2APB).Under the standard of 95%prescription dose for 100%volume,conformity index(CI)and homogeneity index(HI)of target area,irradiation dose of organs at risk,control point(CP)and monitor units(MU)of treatment plan,execution time of treatment plan and pass rate of dose verification were evaluated.Results The mean values of CI,HI,and irradiation dose of organs at risk of two plans were similar,with no significant difference(P>0.05).Compared with 1APB plan,2APB plan had significantly reduced CPs and MUs(P<0.05).In term of plan implementation,the implementation time of 2APB plan was significantly shorter than that of 1APB plan(P<0.05).In term of dose output verification of two plans,the dose pass rate was similar,with no significant difference(P>0.05).Conclusion The dosimetry differences between the two treatment plans are similar,which can meet the clinical requirements.However,the implementation efficiency of 2APB plan has been greatly improved compared with that of 1APB,which can improve the overall work efficiency while reducing the loss of treatment equipment.

关 键 词：MONACO治疗计划系统 容积旋转调强 Arc数目 放射剂量 宫颈癌 

分 类 号：R730.5[医药卫生—肿瘤] R815[医药卫生—临床医学]