首页> 外文期刊>Radiation Oncology Journal >Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in total scalp irradiation: a single institutional experience
【24h】

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in total scalp irradiation: a single institutional experience

机译:在头皮总照射中进行强度调制放疗(IMRT)和体积调制弧光治疗(VMAT)的剂量学比较:单一机构经验

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose Total scalp irradiation (TSI) is a rare but challenging indication. We previously reported that non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was superior to coplanar IMRT in organ-at-risk (OAR) protection and target dose distribution. This consecutive treatment planning study compared IMRT with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods A retrospective treatment plan databank search was performed and 5 patient cases were randomly selected. Cranial imaging was restored from the initial planning computed tomography (CT) and target volumes and OAR were redelineated. For each patients, three treatment plans were calculated (coplanaron-coplanar IMRT, VMAT; prescribed dose 50 Gy, single dose 2 Gy). Conformity, homogeneity and dose volume histograms were used for plan. Results VMAT featured the lowest monitor units and the sharpest dose gradient (1.6 Gy/mm). Planning target volume (PTV) coverage and homogeneity was better in VMAT (coverage, 0.95; homogeneity index [HI], 0.118) compared to IMRT (coverage, 0.94; HI, 0.119) but coplanar IMRT produced the most conformal plans (conformity index [CI], 0.43). Minimum PTV dose range was 66.8% –88.4% in coplanar, 77.5%–88.2% in non-coplanar IMRT and 82.8%–90.3% in VMAT. Mean dose to the brain, brain stem, optic system (maximum dose) and lenses were 18.6, 13.2, 9.1, and 5.2 Gy for VMAT, 21.9, 13.4, 14.5, and 6.3 Gy for non-coplanar and 22.8, 16.5, 11.5, and 5.9 Gy for coplanar IMRT. Maximum optic chiasm dose was 7.7, 8.4, and 11.1 Gy (non-coplanar IMRT, VMAT, and coplanar IMRT). Conclusion Target coverage, homogeneity and OAR protection, was slightly superior in VMAT plans which also produced the sharpest dose gradient towards healthy tissue.
机译:目的总头皮照射(TSI)是一种罕见但具有挑战性的适应症。我们先前曾报道,在器官风险(OAR)保护和目标剂量分布方面,非共面强度调制放射疗法(IMRT)优于共面IMRT。这项连续的治疗计划研究将IMRT与容积调制电弧疗法(VMAT)进行了比较。材料和方法进行回顾性治疗计划数据库搜索,并随机选择5例患者。从最初的计划计算机断层扫描(CT)恢复了颅骨成像,并重新划定了目标体积和OAR。对于每位患者,计算了三个治疗计划(共面/非共面IMRT,VMAT;处方剂量50 Gy,单剂量2 Gy)。一致性,均匀性和剂量体积直方图用于计划。结果VMAT具有最低的监测单位和最大的剂量梯度(1.6 Gy / mm)。与IMRT(覆盖率0.94; HI,0.119)相比,VMAT中的计划目标体积(PTV)覆盖率和同质性更好(覆盖率0.95;同质性指数[HI]为0.118),但共面IMRT产生的保形度最高(符合性指数[ CI],0.43)。 PTV的最小剂量范围在共面时为66.8%–88.4%,在非共面IMRT中为77.5%–88.2%,在VMAT中为82.8%–90.3%。对于VMAT,对大脑,脑干,视神经系统(镜片的最大剂量)和晶状体的平均剂量分别为18.6、13.2、9.1和5.2 Gy,非共面的为21.9、13.4、14.5和6.3 Gy,而共面的为22.8、16.5、11.5,和共面IMRT的5.9 Gy。最大视交叉剂量为7.7、8.4和11.1 Gy(非共面IMRT,VMAT和共面IMRT)。结论在VMAT计划中,目标覆盖率,均一性和OAR保护略胜一筹,后者对健康组织的剂量梯度最大。

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