首页> 外文期刊>Medical dosimetry: official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists >Dosimetric comparison of split field and fixed jaw techniques for large IMRT target volumes in the head and neck.
【24h】

Dosimetric comparison of split field and fixed jaw techniques for large IMRT target volumes in the head and neck.

机译:头部和颈部较大IMRT目标体积的分裂野和固定下颌技术的剂量学比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Some treatment planning systems (TPSs), when used for large-field (>14 cm) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), create split fields that produce excessive multiple-leaf collimator segments, match-line dose inhomogeneity, and higher treatment times than nonsplit fields. A new method using a fixed-jaw technique (FJT) forces the jaw to stay at a fixed position during optimization and is proposed to reduce problems associated with split fields. Dosimetric comparisons between split-field technique (SFT) and FJT used for IMRT treatment is presented. Five patients with head and neck malignancies and regional target volumes were studied and compared with both techniques. Treatment planning was performed on an Eclipse TPS using beam data generated for Varian 2100C linear accelerator. A standard beam arrangement consisting of nine coplanar fields, equally spaced, was used in both techniques. Institutional dose-volume constraints used in head and neck cancer were kept the same for both techniques. The dosimetric coverage for the target volumes between SFT and FJT for head and neck IMRT plan is identical within +/- 1% up to 90% dose. Similarly, the organs at risk (OARs) have dose-volume coverage nearly identical for all patients. When the total monitor unit (MU) and segments were analyzed, SFT produces statistically significant higher segments (17.3 +/- 6.3%) and higher MU (13.7 +/- 4.4%) than the FJT. There is no match line in FJT and hence dose uniformity in the target volume is superior to the SFT. Dosimetrically, SFT and FJT are similar for dose-volume coverage; however, the FJT method provides better logistics, lower MU, shorter treatment time, and better dose uniformity. The number of segments and MU also has been correlated with the whole body radiation dose with long-term complications. Thus, FJT should be the preferred option over SFT for large target volumes.
机译:一些治疗计划系统(TPS)在用于大视野(> 14 cm)强度调制放射治疗(IMRT)时,会产生分裂的场,从而产生过多的多叶准直仪部分,匹配线剂量不均匀性以及更长的治疗时间比非拆分字段一种使用固定钳口技术(FJT)的新方法在优化过程中迫使钳口保持在固定位置,并提出了减少与分裂字段相关的问题的方法。介绍了用于IMRT治疗的分裂场技术(SFT)和FJT之间的剂量学比较。研究了五例头颈部恶性肿瘤和区域目标体积的患者,并与两种技术进行了比较。使用Varian 2100C线性加速器生成的射束数据在Eclipse TPS上进行治疗计划。在两种技术中均使用了由九个等距间隔的共面场组成的标准光束布置。两种技术在头颈癌中使用的机构剂量-体积限制均相同。头颈IMRT计划的SFT与FJT之间目标体积的剂量范围在+/- 1%至最高90%剂量范围内是相同的。同样,所有患者的风险器官(OAR)的剂量-体积覆盖率几乎相同。分析总监视单元(MU)和段时,与FJT相比,SFT产生具有统计意义的较高段(17.3 +/- 6.3%)和更高MU(13.7 +/- 4.4%)。 FJT中没有匹配线,因此目标体积中的剂量均匀性优于SFT。在剂量学上,SFT和FJT在剂量范围覆盖方面相似;但是,FJT方法可提供更好的物流,更低的MU,更短的治疗时间和更好的剂量均匀性。节段和MU的数量也已经与全身辐射剂量相关,具有长期并发症。因此,对于大目标量,FJT应该是SFT的首选选项。

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