...
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics >Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours.
【24h】

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours.

机译:宫颈癌近距离放射治疗中基于计算机断层扫描与基于磁共振成像的轮廓:前瞻性试验的结果和标准化轮廓的初步指南。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare the contours and dose-volume histograms (DVH) of the tumor and organs at risk (OAR) with computed tomography (CT) vs. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in cervical cancer brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients underwent both MRI and CT after applicator insertion. The dose received by at least 90% of the volume (D(90)), the minimal target dose (D(100)), the volume treated to the prescription dose or greater for tumor for the high-risk (HR) and intermediate-risk (IR) clinical target volume (CTV) and the dose to 0.1 cm3, 1 cm3, and 2 cm3 for the OARs were evaluated. A standardized approach to contouring on CT (CT(Std)) was developed, implemented (HR- and IR-CTV(CTStd)), and compared with the MRI contours. RESULTS: Tumor height, thickness, and total volume measurements, as determined by either CT or CT(Std) were not significantly different compared with the MRI volumes. In contrast, the width measurements differed in HR-CTV(CTStd) (p = 0.05) and IR-CTV(CTStd) (p = 0.01). For the HR-CTV(CTStd), this resulted in statistically significant differences in the volume treated to the prescription dose or greater (MRI, 96% vs. CT(Std), 86%, p = 0.01), D(100) (MRI, 5.4 vs. CT(Std), 3.4, p <0.01), and D(90) (MRI, 8.7 vs. CT(Std), 6.7, p <0.01). Correspondingly, the IR-CTV DVH values on MRI vs. CT(Std), differed in the D(100) (MRI, 3.0 vs. CT(Std), 2.2, p = 0.01) and D(90) (MRI, 5.6 vs. CT(Std), 4.6, p = 0.02). The MRI and CT DVH values of the dose to 0.1 cm3, 1 cm3, and 2 cm3 for the OARs were similar. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography-based or MRI-based scans at brachytherapy are adequate for OAR DVH analysis. However, CT tumor contours can significantly overestimate the tumor width, resulting in significant differences in the D(90), D(100), and volume treated to the prescription dose or greater for the HR-CTV compared with that using MRI. MRI remains the standard for CTV definition.
机译:目的:比较在宫颈癌近距离放射治疗中使用计算机断层扫描(CT)与磁共振成像(MRI)进行比较的肿瘤和高危器官(OAR)的轮廓和剂量体积直方图(DVH)。方法和材料:10例患者在涂药器插入后接受了MRI和CT检查。对于高危(HR)和中度肿瘤,所接受剂量至少为体积的90%(D(90)),最小目标剂量(D(100)),已处理至处方剂量的体积或更大-风险(IR)临床目标体积(CTV)和OAR的剂量分别评估为0.1 cm3、1 cm3和2 cm3。开发,实施(HR和IR-CTV(CTStd))CT轮廓的标准方法(CT(Std)),并与MRI轮廓进行比较。结果:通过CT或CT(Std)测定的肿瘤高度,厚度和总体积测量值与MRI体积相比无显着差异。相反,HR-CTV(CTStd)(p = 0.05)和IR-CTV(CTStd)(p = 0.01)的宽度测量值有所不同。对于HR-CTV(CTStd),这导致在处方剂量或更高剂量下的治疗量具有统计学显着性差异(MRI,96%对CT(Std),86%,p = 0.01),D(100)( MRI 5.4 vs.CT(Std),3.4,p <0.01)和D(90)(MRI,8.7 vs.CT(Std),6.7,p <0.01)。相应地,MRI vs. CT(Std)的IR-CTV DVH值在D(100)(MRI,3.0 vs. CT(Std),2.2,p = 0.01)和D(90)(MRI,5.6)上有所不同vs.CT(Std),4.6,p = 0.02)。 OARs的0.1 cm3、1 cm3和2 cm3剂量的MRI和CT DVH值相似。结论:近距离放射治疗中基于计算机断层扫描或MRI的扫描足以进行OAR DVH分析。但是,CT肿瘤轮廓可能会大大高估肿瘤宽度,导致与使用MRI相比,HR-CTV的D(90),D(100)和治疗体积达到或超过处方剂量的体积显着不同。 MRI仍然是CTV定义的标准。

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