首页> 外文期刊>Journal of applied clinical medical physics / >Single‐isocenter hybrid IMRT plans versus two‐isocenter conventional plans and impact of intrafraction motion for the treatment of breast cancer with supraclavicular lymph nodes involvement
【24h】

Single‐isocenter hybrid IMRT plans versus two‐isocenter conventional plans and impact of intrafraction motion for the treatment of breast cancer with supraclavicular lymph nodes involvement

机译:单等中心混合IMRT计划与两等中心常规计划以及分次运动对治疗锁骨上淋巴结转移的乳腺癌的影响

获取原文
       

摘要

The purpose of this study was to compare the single-isocenter, four-field hybrid IMRT with the two-isocenter techniques to treat the whole breast and supraclavicular fields and to investigate the intrafraction motions in both techniques in the superior direction. Fifteen breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation to the whole breast and supraclavicular (SCV) fossa at our institution were selected for this study. Two planning techniques were compared for the treatment of the breast and SCV lymph nodes. The patients were divided into three subgroups according to the whole breast volume. For the two-isocenter technique, conventional wedged or field-within-a-field tangents (FIF) were used to match with the same anterior field for the SCV region. For the single-isocenter technique, four-field hybrid IMRT was used for the tangent fields matched with a half blocked anterior field for the SCV region. To simulate the intrafraction uncertainties in the longitudinal direction for both techniques, the treatment isocenters were shifted by 1 mm and 2 mm in the superior direction. The average breast clinical tumor volume (CTV) receiving 100% ( V 100 % ) of the prescription dose (50 Gy) was 99.3 % ± 0.5 % and 96.4 % ± 1.2 % for the for two-isocenter and single-isocenter plans ( p 0.05 ), respectively. The breast CTV receiving 95% of the prescription dose ( V 95 % ) was close to 100% in both techniques. The average breast CTV receiving 105% ( V 105 % ) of the prescription dose was 32.4 % ± 19.3 % and 23.8 % ± 13.3 % ( p = 0.08 ). The percentage volume of the breast CTV receiving 110% of the dose was 0.4 % ± 1.2 % in the two-isocentric technique vs. 0.1 % ± 0.2 % in the single-isocentric technique. The average uniformity index was 0.91 ± 0.02 vs. 0.91 ± 0.01 in both techniques ( p = 0.04 ), but had no clinical impact. The percentage volume of the contralateral breast receiving a dose of 1 Gy was less than 2.3% in small breast patients and insignificant for medium and large breast sizes. The percentage of the total lung volume receiving g > 20 Gy ( V 20 Gy ) and the heart receiving > 30 Gy ( V 30 Gy ) were 13.6% vs. 14.3% ( p = 0.03 ) and 1.25% vs. 1.2% ( p = 0.62 ), respectively. Shifting the treatment isocenter by 1 mm and 2 mm superiorly showed that the average maximum dose to 1 cc of the breast volume was 55.5 ± 1.8 Gy and 58.6 ± 4.3 Gy in the two-isocentric technique vs. 56.4 ± 2.1 Gy and 59.1 ± 5.1 Gy in the single-isocentric technique ( p = 0.46 , 0.87), respectively. The single-isocenter technique using four-field hybrid IMRT approach resulted in comparable plan quality as the two-isocentric technique. The single-isocenter technique is more sensitive to intrafraction motion in the superior direction compared to the two-isocentric technique. The advantages of the single-isocenter include elimination of isocentric errors due to couch and collimator rotations and reduction in treatment time. This study supports consideration of a single-isocenter four-field hybrid IMRT technique for patients undergoing breast and supraclavicular nodal irradiation.PACS number: 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.dk,
机译:这项研究的目的是比较单等中心,四场混合IMRT与两种等中心技术来治疗整个乳腺和锁骨上区域,并研究这两种技术在向上方向上的内分形运动。选择本机构的15例行全乳房切除术和辅助放射治疗的乳腺癌患者,并在锁骨上锁骨上(SCV)窝进行了这项研究。比较了两种计划技术对乳腺和SCV淋巴结的治疗。根据整个乳房体积将患者分为三个亚组。对于两等距技术,使用常规的楔形或场内切线(FIF)来匹配SCV区域的相同前场。对于单等中心技术,四场混合IMRT用于切向场,而SCV区域则使用半封闭前场。为了模拟两种技术在纵向上的分数内不确定性,将治疗等角点沿上方向偏移了1 mm和2 mm。对于两个等距和单个等中心计划,接受100%(V 100%)处方剂量(50 Gy)的平均乳房临床肿瘤体积(CTV)为99.3%±0.5%和96.4%±1.2%(p 0.05)。两种技术中,接受95%处方剂量(V 95%)的乳房CTV接近100%。接受105%(V 105%)处方剂量的平均乳腺CTV为32.4%±19.3%和23.8%±13.3%(p = 0.08)。接受110%剂量的乳房CTV的百分比体积在两等心技术中为0.4%±1.2%,而在单等心技术中为0.1%±0.2%。两种技术的平均均匀度指数为0.91±0.02,而0.91±0.01(p = 0.04),但无临床影响。在小乳腺患者中,接受1 Gy剂量的对侧乳腺的百分比体积小于2.3%,对于中等大小和较大的乳腺大小而言微不足道。接受g> 20 Gy(V 20 Gy)的肺总体积和接受> 30 Gy(V 30 Gy)的心脏总肺体积的百分数分别为13.6%对14.3%(p = 0.03)和1.25%对1.2%(p = 0.62)。将治疗中心等距移动1毫米和2毫米,可以更好地表明,在两等心技术中,乳腺体积最大平均剂量(1 cc)为55.5±1.8 Gy和58.6±4.3 Gy,而56.4±2.1 Gy和59.1±5.1单等心技术中的Gy分别为(p = 0.46,0.87)。使用四场混合IMRT方法的单等中心技术可产生与两等中心技术相当的计划质量。与两等中心技术相比,单等中心技术对沿向上方向的内部分数运动更敏感。单等中心的优点包括消除了由于卧榻和准直仪旋转而引起的等中心误差,并减少了治疗时间。这项研究支持考虑对接受乳房和锁骨上淋巴结照射的患者采用单等中心四场混合IMRT技术。PACS编号:87.55.D,87.55.de,87.55.dk,

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