[1]魏夏平,苏洁洪,林楚婕,等.3种立体定向放射外科技术在不同脑转移瘤个数下的比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2022,39(11):1329-1333.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2022.11.002]
　WEI Xiaping,SU Jiehong,LIN Chujie,et al.Comparison among 3 different SRS techniques in the treatment of single or multiple brain metastases[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2022,39(11):1329-1333.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2022.11.002]
点击复制

3种立体定向放射外科技术在不同脑转移瘤个数下的比较()
分享到：

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

卷:
39卷
期数:
2022年第11期
页码:
1329-1333
栏目:
医学放射物理
出版日期:
2022-11-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison among 3 different SRS techniques in the treatment of single or multiple brain metastases
文章编号:
1005-202X（2022）11-1329-05
作者:
魏夏平1; 苏洁洪1; 林楚婕1; 朱毅1; 刘叶明1; 黄明超1; 黄小伟2; 石俊月3
1.广州中医药大学金沙洲医院肿瘤放射治疗中心， 广东 广州 510168； 2.东莞理工学院科学技术处， 广东 东莞 523808； 3.前海人寿广州总医院， 广东 广州 511300
Author(s):
WEI Xiaping1;  SU Jiehong1;  LIN Chujie1;  ZHU Yi1;  LIU Yeming1;  HUANG Mingchao1;  HUANG Xiaowei2;  SHI Junyue3
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jinshazhou Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510168, China 2.Office for Science and Technology, Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan 523808, China3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Foresea Life Insurance Guangzhou General Hospital, Guangzhou 511300, China
关键词:
脑转移瘤; 容积旋转调强; 剂量学比较; HyperArc; 射波刀
Keywords:
Keywords: brain metastasis volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric comparison HyperArc CyberKnife
分类号:
R739.41；R815.6
DOI:
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2022.11.002
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的：比较HyperArc、容积旋转调强（VMAT）和射波刀（CyberKnife）在单发和多发脑转移瘤（BM）放射治疗中的剂量学差异。方法：将75例脑转移瘤CT图像分成5组（1 BM、4 BM、8 BM、15 BM、20 BM），分别设计HyperArc、非共面VMAT和CyberKnife这3种不同技术（HA、nCO-VMAT、CK）的计划。分析比较3种计划的剂量学差异，包括靶区适形度指数（CI）、梯度指数（GI）、正常脑组织平均剂量（Brainmean）、机器总跳数（MU）以及出束时间。结果：在1 BM中，HA、nCO-VMAT、CK的GI值（P=0.429）和Brainmean值（P=0.799）接近；HA和nCO-VMAT的CI值接近，优于CK（P<0.001）。在4 BM中，HA、nCO-VMAT、CK的GI值（P=0.334）和Brainmean值（P=0.317）都接近；HA和nCO-VMAT的CI值接近，优于CK（P<0.001）。在8 BM中，HA和nCO-VMAT的CI值接近，优于CK（P<0.001）；HA和CK的GI值接近，优于nCO-VMAT（P<0.001）。在15 BM中，HA的CI值（P<0.001）最优；CK的GI值（P<0.001）最优，HA次之，nCO-VMAT最差；CK的Brainmean值（P<0.001）最优，HA次之，nCO-VMAT最差。在20 BM中，HA的CI值（P<0.001）最优；CK的GI值（P<0.001）最优，HA次之，nCO-VMAT最差。在所有组中HA和nCO-VMAT的MU值都比CK低，CK的出束时间都远大于HA和nCO-VMAT。结论：HA、nCO-VMAT与CK技术都可以降低正常脑组织的剂量，都能取得很好的CI和GI，但HA出束时间短，CK出束时间长。
Abstract:
Abstract: Objective To compare the dosimetric differences among HyperArc (HA), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and CyberKnife (CK) in the radiotherapy of single or multiple brain metastases. Methods The CT images of 75 cases of brain metastases were divided into 5 groups (1 BM, 4 BM, 8 BM, 15 BM, 20 BM), and 3 different treatment plans (HA, nCO-VMAT and CK) were designed for each case. The treatment plans were evaluated and compared in terms of conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), mean dose to normal brain tissues (Brainmean), total monitor units (MU) and delivery time. Results In the cases of 1 BM and 4 BM, GI (1 BM: P=0.429 4 BM: P=0.334) and [Brainmean ](1 BM: P=0.799 4 BM: P=0.317) did not differ significantly among HA, nCO-VMAT and CK and the CI of HA was close to that of nCO-VMAT, and both of them were higher than that of CK (1 BM: P<0.001 4 BM: P<0.001). In the cases of 8 BM, the CI of HA and nCO-VMAT was close and higher than that of CK (P<0.001), and the GI of HA and CK were close and higher than that of nCO-VMAT (P<0.001). In the cases of 15 BM, HA had the optimal CI among 3 different plans and CK had the lowest GI (P<0.001) and [Brainmean ] (P<0.001), followed by HA and nCO-VMAT. In the cases of 20 BM, the optimal CI was found in HA (P<0.001) CK has the minimum GI (P<0.001), followed by HA and nCO-VMAT. In all groups, MU of both HA and nCO-VMAT were lower than that of CK, and the beam delivery time of CK was much longer than those of HA and nCO-VMAT. Conclusion All these techniques (HA, nCO-VMAT and CK) can minimize the irradiated doses to normal brain tissues and achieve satisfying CI and GI. The beam delivery time required for HA is shorter, but the beam delivery time required for CK is much longer.

相似文献/References:

[1]孙小喆,孟慧鹏,史孝伟,等.胸部肿瘤容积旋转调强放射治疗摆位误差分析[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2015,32(01):34.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.01.009]
[2]孙晓欢,周咏春,谭丽娜,等.容积旋转调强与固定野调强在宫颈癌术后放疗中的剂量学比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2014,31(01):4604.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2014.01.003]
[3]张俊俊,邱小平,李奇欣,等.ArcCheck系统在鼻咽癌容积旋转调强剂量验证中的应用[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2014,31(05):5136.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2014.05.009]
[4]刘建庭,王晋丽,郭瑞嵩,等.简化调强技术在脑转移瘤外照射中应用的剂量学研究[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2014,31(06):5244.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2014.06.005]
[5]张矛,金海国,苏清秀,等.肺癌静态调强与容积旋转调强放射治疗间比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2013,30(05):4364.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2013.05.006]
[6]谭丽娜,孙晓欢,马奎,等.三维剂量验证系统Delta4在容积旋转调强计划剂量验证中的应用[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2013,30(06):4497.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2013.06.007]
[7]王沛沛,刘哲铭,李彩虹,等.容积旋转调强与固定野动态调强在直肠癌新辅助放疗中的剂量学比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2015,32(06):901.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.06.030]
　[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2015,32(11):901.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.06.030]
[8]宁丽华,赵桂芝,张磊,等.全脑放疗伴随1~4 个脑转移瘤同期加量不同调强技术的剂量学研究[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2016,33(2):128.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2016.02.005]
[9]李丹明,王黎,孙新臣,等.中晚期宫颈癌适形调强放疗与容积旋转调强技术临床效果比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2016,33(5):478.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2016.05.010]
　[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2016,33(11):478.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2016.05.010]
[10]姚升宇,颜歌,赵国旗,等.容积旋转调强与固定野动态调强低剂量区比较[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2016,33(5):538.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2016.05.022]
　[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2016,33(11):538.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2016.05.022]
[11]张平,戴鹏,罗龙辉,等. 准直器角度对颅内两个脑转移瘤容积旋转调强计划的影响[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2018,35(12):1399.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2018.12.006]
　ZHANG Ping,DAI Peng,LUO Longhui,et al. Effects of collimator angle on volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for two brain metastases [J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2018,35(11):1399.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2018.12.006]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
【收稿日期】2022-06-19 【基金项目】国家自然科学青年基金（12004410） 【作者简介】魏夏平，硕士，研究方向：肿瘤放射物理，E-mail: wei-xia-ping@163.com 【通信作者】苏洁洪，工程师，研究方向：肿瘤放射物理，E-mail: 573921373@qq.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2022-11-25