首页> 外文期刊>Clinical oncology >Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Is Rapidarc a Better Solution than Cyberknife?
【24h】

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Is Rapidarc a Better Solution than Cyberknife?

机译:前列腺癌的立体定向身体放射疗法:Rapidarc是否比射波刀更好的解决方案?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Aims: There is increasing interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the management of prostate adenocarcinoma, with encouraging initial biological progression-free survival results. However, the limited literature is dominated by the use of the Cyberknife platform. This led to an international phase III study comparing outcomes for Cyberknife SBRT with both surgery and conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (the PACE study). We aim to compare Cyberknife delivery with Rapidarc, a more widely available treatment platform. Materials and methods: The scans of six previous prostate radiotherapy patients with a range of prostate sizes were chosen. The clinical target volume was defined as the prostate gland, with 3mm added for the Cyberknife planning target volume (PTV) and 5mm for the Rapidarc PTV. Accuray multiplan v. 4.5 was used for planning with delivery on a Cyberknife VSI system v9.5; Varian Eclipse v10 was used for Rapidarc planning with delivery using a Varian 21EX linear accelerator. Both systems attempted to deliver at least 35Gy to the PTV in five fractions with PTV heterogeneity <12%. Results: All organ at risk (OAR) constraints were achieved by both platforms, whereas the Cyberknife failed to achieve the desired PTV homogeneity constraint in two cases. In other OARs without constraints, Cyberknife delivered higher doses. The volume of the 35Gy isodose was slightly larger with Rapidarc, but conversely at doses <35 Gy normal tissues received higher doses with Cyberknife. The mean planning and delivery time was in favour of Rapidarc. Conclusions: We have shown that there is no discernible dosimetric advantage to choosing Cyberknife over Rapidarc for SBRT delivery in prostate cancer. Given the significant benefits of Rapidarc in terms of availability, planning and delivery time, the authors suggest that phase III trials of SBRT should include Rapidarc or equivalent rotational delivery platforms.
机译:目的:立体定向放射疗法(SBRT)用于治疗前列腺腺癌,并具有令人鼓舞的最初无生物学进展的存活结果,对此引起了越来越多的关注。但是,有限的文献主要是使用Cyber​​knife平台。这导致了一项国际III期研究,该研究比较了射波刀SBRT与外科手术和传统的分段强度调制放射疗法的结果(PACE研究)。我们旨在将射波刀的交付与Rapidarc(一种更广泛使用的治疗平台)进行比较。材料和方法:选择6例既往前列腺大小范围不同的前列腺癌放疗患者进行扫描。临床目标体积定义为前列腺,射波刀计划目标体积(PTV)增加3mm,Rapidarc PTV增加5mm。 Accuray multiplan v。4.5用于在Cyber​​knife VSI系统v9.5上进行交付计划。 Varian Eclipse v10用于Rapidarc规划,并使用Varian 21EX线性加速器进行交付。两种系统均试图以五种馏分向PTV输送至少35Gy,PTV异质性<12%。结果:两个平台均实现了所有风险器官(OAR)约束,而在两种情况下,射波刀均未达到所需的PTV同质约束。在其他没有限制的OAR中,射波刀的剂量更高。 Rapidarc的35Gy等剂量的体积稍大,但是相反地,当剂量小于35Gy时,正常组织的射波刀剂量更高。平均计划和交付时间有利于Rapidarc。结论:我们已经证明选择前列腺癌的射波刀比使用Rapidarc的SBRT没有明显的剂量学优势。鉴于Rapidarc在可用性,计划和交付时间方面的显着优势,作者建议SBRT的III期试验应包括Rapidarc或同等的旋转交付平台。

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