首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Radiation Research >Radiation therapy for deep periocular cancer treatments when protons are unavailable: is combining electrons and orthovoltage therapy beneficial?
【2h】

Radiation therapy for deep periocular cancer treatments when protons are unavailable: is combining electrons and orthovoltage therapy beneficial?

机译:当质子不可用时放射疗法可用于深层眼周癌治疗:电子疗法和正电压疗法的结合是否有益?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Deep periocular cancers can be difficult to plan and treat with radiation, given the difficulties in apposing bolus to skin, and the proximity to the retina and other optic structures. We sought to compare the combination of electrons and orthovoltage therapy (OBE) with existing modalities for these lesions. Four cases—a retro-orbital melanoma (Case 1) and basal cell carcinomas, extending across the eyelid (Case 2) or along the medial canthus (Cases 3–4)—were selected for comparison. In each case, radiotherapy plans for electron only, 70% electron and 30% orthovoltage (OBE), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), conformal arc, and protons were compared. Dose–volume histograms for planning target volume coverage and selected organs at risk (OARs) were then calculated. The V90% coverage of the planning target volume was >98% for electrons, VMAT, conformal arc and proton plans and 90.2% and 89.5% in OBE plans for Cases 2 and 3, respectively. The retinal V80% was >98% in electron, VMAT and proton plans and 79.4%; and 87.1% in OBE and conformal arcs for Case 2 and 91.3%, 36.4%, 56.9%, 52.4% and 43.7% for Case 3 in electrons, OBE, VMAT, conformal arc and proton plans, respectively. Protons provided superior coverage, homogeneity and OAR sparing, compared with all other modalities. However, given its simplicity and widespread availability, OBE is a potential alternative treatment option for moderately deep lesions where bolus placement is difficult.
机译:鉴于难以在皮肤上推注团块,以及靠近视网膜和其他视神经结构,深层眼周癌很难通过放射线进行规划和治疗。我们试图将电子和正电压疗法(OBE)的组合与这些病变的现有模式进行比较。选择了4例病例(眼眶后黑色素瘤(病例1)和基底细胞癌,它们横跨眼睑(病例2)或沿内can延伸(病例3-4))进行比较。在每种情况下,都比较了仅电子,70%电子和30%正电压(OBE),体积调制电弧疗法(VMAT),保形电弧和质子的放射治疗计划。然后计算了用于规划目标体积覆盖范围和选定风险器官(OAR)的剂量-体积直方图。对于电子,VMAT,保形电弧和质子计划,计划目标体积的V90%覆盖率> 98%,对于案例2和3,在OBE计划中分别为90.2%和89.5%。在电子,VMAT和质子计划中,视网膜V80%> 98%,而> 79.4%。在电子,OBE,VMAT,保形弧和质子计划中,案例2的OBE和保形弧分别为87.1%和91.3%,36.4%,56.9%,52.4%和43.7%(案例3)。与所有其他方式相比,质子提供了更好的覆盖范围,同质性和OAR保留。但是,鉴于其简单性和广泛的可用性,OBE是难以快速推注的中等深度病变的潜在替代治疗选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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