Comparison of different plans based on generalized equivalent uniform dose optimization for rectal cancer: fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs volumetric modulated arc therapy(PDF)
《中国医学物理学杂志》[ISSN:1005-202X/CN:44-1351/R]
- Issue:
- 2018年第2期
- Page:
- 171-175
- Research Field:
- 医学放射物理
- Publishing date:
Info
- Title:
- Comparison of different plans based on generalized equivalent uniform dose optimization for rectal cancer: fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs volumetric modulated arc therapy
- Author(s):
- ZUO Yuhao1; YANG Zhen2; ZHOU Jianliang1; LEI Mingjun2; CAO Ying2; YANG Xiaoyu2; TANG Du2; LIU Lidong1
- 1. School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang 421000, China; 2. Department of Oncology,
Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410008, China
- Keywords:
- ; Keywords: generalized equivalent uniform dose; volumetric modulated arc therapy; fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy; rectal cancer
- PACS:
- R815.2；R735.37
- DOI:
- DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2018.02.010
- Abstract:
- Objective To compare the biological and dosimetric differences of volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) based on generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) optimization for rectal cancer and provide some reference for clinical decision. Methods Ten patients with rectal cancer were selected, and three kinds of plans were designed for each patient, namely five-field IMRT (5FIMRT), seven-field IMRT (7FIMRT) and RapidArc plans, with the same prescription dose of 50 Gy/25 F for planning target volume (PTV). Finally, we applied paired t test to compare the differences among three plans in the mean dose-volume histogram and monitor unit, the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) of PTV, the normal tissue complication possibility of organs-at-risk, the gEUD and physical dose of PTV and organs-at-risk. Results All the target dose distribution in three plans met the clinical requirement. The CI and HI of RapidArc were better than those of 5FIMRT and 7FIMRT (P<0.05). In the protection of small intestine and bladder, 7FIMRT and RapidArc had no significant differences (P>0.05), and both of the two plans are better than 5FIMRT (P<0.05). For the protection of bilateral femoral head, RapidArc was superior to 7FIMRT (P<0.05), and 7FIMRT was better than 5FIMRT (P<0.05). RapidArc had significantly less monitor units as comparison with 5FIMRT and 7FIMRT (P<0.05). Conclusion In the plans based on gEUD optimization, RapidArc and 7FIMRT were superior to 5FIMRT, moreover, RapidArc had advantages in CI and HI of PTV, sparing of femoral head and delivery efficiency compared to 7FIMRT.
Last Update: 2018-01-29