...
首页> 外文期刊>Radiotherapy and oncology: Journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology >A comparison of coplanar four-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate.
【24h】

A comparison of coplanar four-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate.

机译:共面四场前列腺保形放射治疗技术的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conformal radiotherapy of the prostate is an increasingly common technique, but the optimal choice of beam configuration remains unclear. This study systematically compares a number of coplanar treatment plans for four-field irradiation of two different clinical treatment volumes: prostate only (PO) and the prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A variety of four-field coplanar treatment plans were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. Plans included a four-field 'box' plan, a symmetric plan having bilateral anterior and posterior oblique fields, a plan with anterior oblique and lateral fields, a series of asymmetric plans, and a three-field plan having anterior and bilateral fields for comparison. Doses of 64 and 74 Gy were prescribed to the isocentre. Plans were compared using the volume of rectum irradiated to greater than 50% (V50), 80% (V80) and 90% (V90) of the prescribed dose. Tumour control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for the rectum, bladder and femoral heads were also evaluated. Femoral head dose was limited such that less than 10% of each femoral head received 70% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS: For the PO group, the optimal plan consisted of anterior oblique and lateral fields (Rectal V80 = 23.8+/-5.0% (1 SD)), while the box technique (V80 = 26.0+/-5.8%) was less advantageous in terms of rectal sparing (P = 0.001). Similar results were obtained for the PSV group (Rectal V80 = 43.9+/-5.0% and 47.3+/-5.5% for the two plan types, respectively, P = 0.001). The three-field plan was comparable to the optimal four-field plan but gave higher superficial body dose. With dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy, the mean TCP for the optimal plan rose from 52.0+/-2.8% to 74.1+/-2.0%. Meanwhile, rectal NTCP for the optimal plan rose by 3.5% (PO) or 8.4% (PSV), compared to 4.7% (PO) or 10.1% (PSV) for the box plan. CONCLUSIONS: For PO volumes, a plan with gantry angles of 35 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees and 325 degrees offers a high level of rectal sparing and acceptable dose to the femoral heads for all patients, while for PSV volumes, the corresponding plan has gantry angles of 20 degrees, 90 degrees , 270 degrees and 340 degrees. Using these plans, the gain in TCP resulting from dose escalation can be achieved with a smaller increase in anticipated rectal NTCP.
机译:背景与目的:前列腺的保形放射疗法是一种越来越普遍的技术,但是光束配置的最佳选择仍然不清楚。这项研究系统地比较了两种不同临床治疗量:仅前列腺(PO)和前列腺加精囊(PSV)的四场照射的许多共面治疗计划。材料与方法:针对十位患者中的每位患者的PO和PSV量创建了多种四场共面治疗计划。计划包括四场“箱形”计划,具有双侧前,后斜视野的对称计划,具有前斜和后侧视野的计划,一系列非对称计划以及具有前与双侧视野的三场计划以进行比较。对等心点规定了64 Gy和74 Gy的剂量。使用大于规定剂量50%(V50),80%(V80)和90%(V90)的直肠照射量比较计划。还评估了直肠,膀胱和股骨头的肿瘤控制概率(TCP)和正常组织并发症概率(NTCP)。股骨头剂量受到限制,使得每个股骨头中只有不到10%的剂量为处方剂量的70%。结果:对于PO组,最佳方案由前斜肌和侧视野组成(直肠V80 = 23.8 +/- 5.0%(1 SD)),而盒装技术(V80 = 26.0 +/- 5.8%)的优势较小就直肠保留而言(P = 0.001)。 PSV组获得了相似的结果(两种计划类型的直肠V80分别为43.9 +/- 5.0%和47.3 +/- 5.5%,P = 0.001)。三场计划与最佳四场计划相当,但给出了更高的表观身体剂量。随着剂量从64 Gy升级到74 Gy,最佳计划的平均TCP从52.0 +/- 2.8%上升到74.1 +/- 2.0%。同时,最佳计划的直肠NTCP上升了3.5%(PO)或8.4%(PSV),而盒装计划的直肠NTCP则上升了4.7%(PO)或10.1%(PSV)。结论:对于PO容积,龙门角为35度,90度,270度和325度的计划可为所有患者提供高水平的直肠保留和股骨头可接受的剂量,而对于PSV容积,相应的计划具有20度,90度,270度和340度的机架角度。使用这些计划,可以通过预期直肠NTCP的较小增加来实现剂量递增带来的TCP增益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号