{"title":"Comparative role of three-dimensional radiotherapy planning and inhomogeneity corrections in carcinoma of the tongue.","authors":"M Rakshak, V Kaushal, B P Das","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The authors have assessed the role of computerized three-dimensional (3-D) and traditional (TD) radiotherapy planning and inhomogeneity corrections in improving target volume coverage and normal tissue sparing in carcinoma of the tongue. Coverage of target volumes in 3-D versus TD plans revealed the following. Volume receiving 95% of dose, clinical target volume (CTV): 1-68% versus 0-24%; gross tumour volume-lymph nodes (GTV-l): 0-80% versus 0-20%; gross tumour volume-primary tumour (GTV-II): 0-65% versus 0-26%. Dose to 95% of target volume CTV 77-92% versus 76-87%; GTV-I: 81-90% versus 61-88%; GTV-II: 82-93% versus 68-87%. Minimum dose to 5% of target volume, CTV: 77-93% versus 74-81%; GTV-I: 81-90% versus 61-88%; GTV-II: 76-93% versus 68-87%. Minimum dose to a volume of no less than 5% of the target volume, CTV: 93-98% versus 88-96%; GTV-I: 87-100% versus 88-97%; GTV-II: 86-98% versus 88-96%. A new parameter (inhomogeneity difference) was devised to study target volume dose homogeneity and was found to be very useful. Dose to two-thirds of the parotid glands in 3-D versus TD plans showed a mean of 46 versus 65% for right parotid glands and 44 versus 56% for left parotid glands in all patients. Better tumour dose homogeneity, increased mean tumour dose, avoidance of geographic misses and better parotid sparing was achieved in 3-D plans as compared to TD plans. We could not demonstrate any role for inhomogeneity corrections using currently available computerized dose algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":75572,"journal":{"name":"Australasian radiology","volume":"41 2","pages":"143-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The authors have assessed the role of computerized three-dimensional (3-D) and traditional (TD) radiotherapy planning and inhomogeneity corrections in improving target volume coverage and normal tissue sparing in carcinoma of the tongue. Coverage of target volumes in 3-D versus TD plans revealed the following. Volume receiving 95% of dose, clinical target volume (CTV): 1-68% versus 0-24%; gross tumour volume-lymph nodes (GTV-l): 0-80% versus 0-20%; gross tumour volume-primary tumour (GTV-II): 0-65% versus 0-26%. Dose to 95% of target volume CTV 77-92% versus 76-87%; GTV-I: 81-90% versus 61-88%; GTV-II: 82-93% versus 68-87%. Minimum dose to 5% of target volume, CTV: 77-93% versus 74-81%; GTV-I: 81-90% versus 61-88%; GTV-II: 76-93% versus 68-87%. Minimum dose to a volume of no less than 5% of the target volume, CTV: 93-98% versus 88-96%; GTV-I: 87-100% versus 88-97%; GTV-II: 86-98% versus 88-96%. A new parameter (inhomogeneity difference) was devised to study target volume dose homogeneity and was found to be very useful. Dose to two-thirds of the parotid glands in 3-D versus TD plans showed a mean of 46 versus 65% for right parotid glands and 44 versus 56% for left parotid glands in all patients. Better tumour dose homogeneity, increased mean tumour dose, avoidance of geographic misses and better parotid sparing was achieved in 3-D plans as compared to TD plans. We could not demonstrate any role for inhomogeneity corrections using currently available computerized dose algorithms.
作者评估了计算机三维(3-D)和传统(TD)放疗计划和不均匀性校正在提高舌癌靶体积覆盖和正常组织保留方面的作用。3d和TD计划中目标体积的覆盖揭示了以下几点。容积接受剂量的95%,临床靶容积(CTV): 1-68% vs 0-24%;总肿瘤体积-淋巴结(GTV-l): 0-80% vs 0-20%;总肿瘤体积原发肿瘤(GTV-II): 0-65% vs 0-26%。剂量达到目标体积的95% CTV 77-92% vs 76-87%;GTV-I: 81-90% vs 61-88%;GTV-II: 82-93%对68-87%。最小剂量达到目标体积的5%,CTV: 77-93% vs 74-81%;GTV-I: 81-90% vs 61-88%;GTV-II: 76-93%对68-87%。最小剂量不小于靶体积的5%,CTV: 93-98% vs 88-96%;GTV-I: 87-100% vs 88-97%;GTV-II: 86-98% vs 88-96%。设计了一个新的参数(非均匀性差)来研究靶体积剂量均匀性,发现它是非常有用的。3-D方案中三分之二腮腺的剂量与TD方案相比,在所有患者中,右侧腮腺的平均剂量为46%,左侧腮腺为65%,左侧腮腺为44%,左侧腮腺为56%。与TD计划相比,3d计划实现了更好的肿瘤剂量均匀性,增加了平均肿瘤剂量,避免了地理遗漏和更好的腮腺保留。我们无法证明使用目前可用的计算机剂量算法进行非均匀性校正的任何作用。