[1]杨含,钟明松,吴府容,等.胸中段食管癌共面不等分5野及铅门跟随调强放疗计划的剂量学研究[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2020,37(7):810-815.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.07.003]
　YANG Han,ZHONG Mingsong,WU Furong,et al.Dosimetric study on coplanar unequal 5-field versus jaw tracking intensity-modulated radiotherapy for middle thoracic esophageal cancer[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2020,37(7):810-815.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.07.003]
点击复制

胸中段食管癌共面不等分5野及铅门跟随调强放疗计划的剂量学研究()
分享到：

《中国医学物理学杂志》[ISSN:1005-202X/CN:44-1351/R]

卷:
37
期数:
2020年第7期
页码:
810-815
栏目:
医学放射物理
出版日期:
2020-07-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Dosimetric study on coplanar unequal 5-field versus jaw tracking intensity-modulated radiotherapy for middle thoracic esophageal cancer
文章编号:
1005-202X（2020）07-0810-06
作者:
杨含; 钟明松; 吴府容; 李麒成; 靳富
重庆大学附属肿瘤医院/重庆市肿瘤研究所/重庆市肿瘤医院肿瘤放射治疗中心， 重庆 400030
Author(s):
YANG Han;  ZHONG Mingsong;  WU Furong;  LI Qicheng;  JIN Fu
Chongqing University Cancer Hospital/Chongqing Cancer Institute/Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing 400030, China
关键词:
食管癌; 铅门跟随; 铅门固定; 调强计划; 剂量学
Keywords:
Keywords: esophageal cancer jaw tracking static jaw intensity-modulated radiotherapy dosimetry
分类号:
R735.1；R811.1
DOI:
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.07.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的：比较4种调强放疗计划（IMRT）的剂量学差异，探讨不同布野方式和铅门跟随（JT）技术对胸中段食管癌靶区和危及器官的剂量影响。方法：选取10例鳞状细胞癌患者入组，并对每例患者设计4种放疗方案。3种铅门固定计划：IMRT1：0°、130°、160°、195°、220°，IMRT2：0°、130°、165°、200°、330°，IMRT3：0°、30°、130°、200°、330°；1种铅门跟随计划IMRT-JT：在IMRT2基础上使用铅门跟随技术对剂量重新计算评估。比较4种计划的靶区和危及器官的剂量体积参数、适形度指数（CI）、剂量均匀性指数（HI）及机器跳数（MU）。结果：4种计划的靶区剂量分布均达到临床处方的剂量要求。IMRT1、IMRT2、IMRT3计划比较，IMRT1、IMRT3计划PTV的CI略优于IMRT2计划；在心脏（V20、V30、V40、Dmean）剂量方面，IMRT1<0.05）；在脊髓（dmax、d1%）方面，imrt1><0.05）；imrt2计划可显著降低肺（v5、v20、dmean）剂量，但mu相较于其它计划有增加（p><0.05）。imrt2与imrt-jt相比，ptv的hi差异无统计学意义（p>0.05），但IMRT-JT的CI优于IMRT2计划（P<0.05）；IMRT-JT计划的肺（V5、V20、V30、Dmean）、心脏（V20、V30、V40、Dmean）、脊髓（Dmax、D1%、Dmean）均低于IMRT2计划的相应值（P<0.05）；IMRT-JT的MU相较于IMRT2计划有增加（P<0.05）。结论：IMRT1、IMRT2可分别降低心脏、肺的受量；而JT技术则可进一步降低危及器官的受量。
Abstract:
Abstract: Objective To compare the dosimetric different of 4 different intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans, and to explore the dosimetric effects of different field arrangements and jaw tracking (JT) technique on target areas and organs-at-risk in radiotherapy for middle thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods Ten patients with squamous cell carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Four kinds of radiotherapy plans, including 3 static jaw plans and 1 JT plan, were designed for each patient. The static jaw plans included IMRT1 (0°, 130°, 160°, 195°, 220°), IMRT2 (0°, 130°, 165°, 200°, 330°) and IMRT3 (0°、30°、130°、200°、330°), and there was only 1 JT plan (IMRT-JT) in which the dose was recalculated and assessed by JT technique based on IMRT2. The dose-volume parameters of target areas and organs-at-risk, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MU) were compared among 4 different plans. Results The target dose distribution in 4 plans all met the prescribed dose requirements. The comparison among IMRT1, IMRT2 and IMRT3 showed that the CI of PTV in IMRT1 and IMRT3 was slightly higher than that in IMRT2, and that the V20, V30, V40 and Dmean of the heart were highest in IMRT3, followed by IMRT2 and IMRT1 (P<0.05), and that the Dmax and D1% of spinal cord were highest in IMRT2, followed by IMRT3 and IMRT1 (P<0.05), and that compared with the other two plans, IMRT2 plan significantly reduced the V5, V20 and Dmean of lungs, but increased MU (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the HI of PTV between IMRT2 and IMRT-JT, but the CI of IMRT-JT was higher than that in IMRT2 (P<0.05). IMRT-JT was superior to IMRT2 in decreasing the dosimetric parameters of lungs (V5, V20, V30, Dmean), the heart (V20, V30, V40, Dmean), and spinal cord (Dmax, D1%, Dmean), but MU in IMRT-JT was increased as compared with that in IMRT2 (P<0.05). Conclusion Although IMRT1 and IMRT2 can decrease the doses to the heart and lungs, respectively, JT technique can further decrease the doses to organs-at-risk.

相似文献/References:

[1]杨一威,商海焦,单国平,等.两种不同优化算法在胸部肿瘤调强放射治疗计划中的对比研究[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2015,32(02):276.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.02.030]
[2]曾 彪,张九堂,席许平,等.单中心上下半野技术在胸中上段食管癌放射治疗中的剂量学分布[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2015,32(03):357.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.03.012]
[3]陈恩乐,吴 魁,董 事,等.改变多叶准直器角度对调强放疗计划效率的影响[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2015,32(03):437.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.03.030]
[4]宋 威,赵 迪,鹿 红,等.射野方向优化技术在胸中上段食管癌调强放疗中的应用[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2014,31(05):5109.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2014.05.003]
[5]苏善宁,曾自力.中下段食管癌三维适形放疗不同照射方法对剂量分布的影响[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2014,31(06):5249.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2014.06.006]
[6]陈杨生.食管癌放射治疗胸部组织校正与否对剂量学影响的研究[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2013,30(05):4360.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2013.05.005]
[7]刘苓苓,费振乐,李兵兵,等.个性化选择食管癌放疗技术[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2016,33(3):243.[doi:1005-202X（2016）03-0243-05]
　[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2016,33(7):243.[doi:1005-202X（2016）03-0243-05]
[8]邵凯南,杜锋磊,李剑龙.RayArc在胸部旋转调强放射治疗计划设计中的应用[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2017,34(2):131.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2017.02.005]
　Application of RayArc in volumetric modulated arc therapy planning of chest cancer[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2017,34(7):131.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2017.02.005]
[9]王庆章,段天宇,刘建超,等.Monaco与Pinnacle治疗计划系统在食管癌放疗剂量验证上的比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2017,34(2):166.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2017.02.011]
　Comparison of Monaco and Pinnacle treatment planning systems on the dosimetric verification of radiotherapy for esophageal cancer[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2017,34(7):166.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2017.02.011]
[10]成树林,宾石珍,单冬勇,等. 铅门跟随技术与铅门固定技术在乳腺癌根治术后调强放疗中的剂量学比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2017,34(5):480.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2017.05.010]
　[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2017,34(7):480.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2017.05.010]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
【收稿日期】2020-01-13 【基金项目】国家自然科学基金（11575038, 11805025, 81972857） 【作者简介】杨含，放疗物理师，研究方向：放射物理技术，E-mail: yherge@163.com 【通信作者】靳富，博士，高级工程师，研究方向：肿瘤放射治疗，E-mail: jfazj@126.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-07-28