Comparison among IMRT, sIMRT and 3DCRT in radiotherapy for middle thoracic esophageal cancer(PDF)
《中国医学物理学杂志》[ISSN:1005-202X/CN:44-1351/R]
- Issue:
- 2022年第10期
- Page:
- 1208-1212
- Research Field:
- 医学放射物理
- Publishing date:
Info
- Title:
- Comparison among IMRT, sIMRT and 3DCRT in radiotherapy for middle thoracic esophageal cancer
- Author(s):
- FU Bo1; WU Jianyu1; SHEN Jiapeng1; RUAN Bishun1; XU Jinhui1; LONG Quanxian1; HE Yufeng1; PENG Zhigang2
- 1. Department of Oncology, The Second Peoples Hospital of Qinzhou, Qinzhou 535000, China 2. Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, China
- Keywords:
- Keywords: intensity-modulated radiotherapy simplified intensity-modulated radiotherapy three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy middle thoracic esophageal cancer
- PACS:
- R816.5
- DOI:
- DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2022.10.005
- Abstract:
- Abstract: Objective To compare the dosimetric differences among intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), simplified intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for middle thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods According to the radiotherapy techniques, 105 patients with middle thoracic esophageal cancer were divided into IMRT group (n=33), sIMRT group (n=40) and 3DCRT group (n=32). The D2, D50, D98, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of target areas, the V5, V10, V20 of both lungs, the maximum dose (Dmax) to spinal cord and the mean dose (Dmean) to heart were compared among different groups. Results The D2, D50, D98 and HI in IMRT group and sIMRT group were (6 659.43±161.15) cGy and (6 603.55±145.54) cGy, (6 312.26±132.20) cGy and (6 289.94±121.17) cGy, (5 815.43±114.41) cGy and (5 801.16±120.03) CGy, (1.09±0.04) and (1.08±0.03), respectively, which were significantly higher than those in 3DCRT group (P<0.05). The CI was (0.71±0.02) in IMRT group and (0.72±0.03) in sIMRT group, significantly lower than that in 3DCRT group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the V5, V10, V20 of both lungs and the Dmax to spinal cord among IMRT group, sIMRT group and 3DCRT group (P>0.05). The Dmean to heart was (784.69±101.16) cGy in IMRT group and (796.79±112.28) cGy in sIMRT group, significantly lower than that in 3DCRT group (P<0.05). The monitor units and number of subfields in sIMRT group were (432.24±71.19) MU and (18.03±5.56), which were significantly lower than those in IMRT group and 3DCRT group (P<0.05). The monitor units and number of subfields in IMRT group were (501.16±78.98) MU and (26.65±7.140), respectively, which were significantly lower than those in 3DCRT group (P<0.05). The differences in the incidences of bone marrow transplantation, radiation pneumonia, radiation esophagetis, pulmonary fibrosis among IMRT group, sIMRT group and 3DCRT group were trivial (P>0.05), and there was no significant difference in radiotherapy efficacy among IMRT group, sIMRT group and 3DCRT group (P>0.05). Conclusion 3DCRT, IMRT and sIMRT can all meet the clinical requirements for dosimetric parameters, and among them, sIMRT is preferred in clinical practice because of the low cardiac radiation dose and monitor units.
Last Update: 2022-10-27