对Halcyon、TrueBeam和TomoTherapy用于颈胸食管癌放疗的剂量质量和治疗效率进行比较评估。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Shilin Chen, Jiazhou Wang, Weigang Hu, Yao Xu
{"title":"对Halcyon、TrueBeam和TomoTherapy用于颈胸食管癌放疗的剂量质量和治疗效率进行比较评估。","authors":"Shilin Chen, Jiazhou Wang, Weigang Hu, Yao Xu","doi":"10.1177/15330338241293321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study primarily aims to investigate the suitability of Halcyon in the context of cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer by exploring the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of Halcyon plans with different arc configurations. Additionally, it compares these findings with the dosimetric indices and delivery efficiency of TrueBeam and TomoTherapy accelerators, focusing on their capability to optimize protection for organs at risk (OARs) while maintaining efficient treatment delivery strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study involved 26 patients diagnosed with cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer, and new radiotherapy plans were created using Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy. Dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics and delivery efficiency for plans involving different arc numbers on Halcyon (2, 3, and 4 arcs) were compared with those from TrueBeam and TomoTherapy. T-tests were employed to evaluate differences in organ protection among the accelerators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Halcyon plans, especially those with 4 arcs, provided superior protection for organs at risk, including the heart, lungs, and spinal cord, while maintaining excellent delivery efficiency. Compared to TrueBeam 2arc plans and TomoTherapy helical plans, Halcyon plans with 3 arcs also showed slight advantages. Although TomoTherapy offered better uniformity in dose distribution, it did not demonstrate a clear advantage over the other accelerators in terms of OAR protection or treatment efficiency. Furthermore, despite the lack of clear advantages in TrueBeam 2arc plans with flattening filter (FF), TrueBeam with flattening filter free (FFF) plans may hold potential in the treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Halcyon, particularly with 4 arcs, offers an optimal balance between reducing toxicity to organs at risk and maintaining treatment efficiency, making it a preferred choice in cervical thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy. The findings highlight the need for careful selection of radiotherapy accelerators based on specific clinical goals, with Halcyon showing potential advantages in scenarios where both treatment efficiency and OAR protection are paramount.</p>","PeriodicalId":22203,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","volume":"23 ","pages":"15330338241293321"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy in Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"Shilin Chen, Jiazhou Wang, Weigang Hu, Yao Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15330338241293321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study primarily aims to investigate the suitability of Halcyon in the context of cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer by exploring the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of Halcyon plans with different arc configurations. Additionally, it compares these findings with the dosimetric indices and delivery efficiency of TrueBeam and TomoTherapy accelerators, focusing on their capability to optimize protection for organs at risk (OARs) while maintaining efficient treatment delivery strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study involved 26 patients diagnosed with cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer, and new radiotherapy plans were created using Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy. Dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics and delivery efficiency for plans involving different arc numbers on Halcyon (2, 3, and 4 arcs) were compared with those from TrueBeam and TomoTherapy. T-tests were employed to evaluate differences in organ protection among the accelerators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Halcyon plans, especially those with 4 arcs, provided superior protection for organs at risk, including the heart, lungs, and spinal cord, while maintaining excellent delivery efficiency. Compared to TrueBeam 2arc plans and TomoTherapy helical plans, Halcyon plans with 3 arcs also showed slight advantages. Although TomoTherapy offered better uniformity in dose distribution, it did not demonstrate a clear advantage over the other accelerators in terms of OAR protection or treatment efficiency. Furthermore, despite the lack of clear advantages in TrueBeam 2arc plans with flattening filter (FF), TrueBeam with flattening filter free (FFF) plans may hold potential in the treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Halcyon, particularly with 4 arcs, offers an optimal balance between reducing toxicity to organs at risk and maintaining treatment efficiency, making it a preferred choice in cervical thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy. The findings highlight the need for careful selection of radiotherapy accelerators based on specific clinical goals, with Halcyon showing potential advantages in scenarios where both treatment efficiency and OAR protection are paramount.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"15330338241293321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528764/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338241293321\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338241293321","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究的主要目的是通过探索不同弧形配置的 Halcyon 计划的剂量质量和传输效率,研究 Halcyon 在治疗颈胸食管癌方面的适用性。此外,研究还将这些结果与 TrueBeam 和 TomoTherapy 加速器的剂量指数和传输效率进行了比较,重点关注它们在保持高效治疗传输策略的同时优化对危险器官 (OAR) 保护的能力:这项回顾性研究涉及 26 名确诊为颈胸食管癌的患者,使用 Halcyon、TrueBeam 和 TomoTherapy 制定了新的放疗计划。将 Halcyon 上不同弧数(2、3 和 4 弧)计划的剂量容积直方图(DVH)指标和传输效率与 TrueBeam 和 TomoTherapy 的指标和传输效率进行了比较。采用 T 检验来评估不同加速器在器官保护方面的差异:结果:Halcyon计划,尤其是4弧计划,为包括心脏、肺部和脊髓在内的高危器官提供了更好的保护,同时保持了出色的传输效率。与 TrueBeam 2 弧形计划和 TomoTherapy 螺旋计划相比,Halcyon 3 弧形计划也略胜一筹。虽然 TomoTherapy 的剂量分布更均匀,但在 OAR 保护或治疗效率方面,它与其他加速器相比并没有明显的优势。此外,尽管带有扁平化滤波器(FF)的 TrueBeam 2 弧计划缺乏明显优势,但带有无扁平化滤波器(FFF)的 TrueBeam 计划可能在治疗中具有潜力:结论:Halcyon,尤其是 4 弧计划,在减少对危险器官的毒性和保持治疗效率之间实现了最佳平衡,因此成为颈胸食管癌放疗的首选。研究结果凸显了根据特定临床目标谨慎选择放疗加速器的必要性,Halcyon 在治疗效率和保护危险器官(OAR)均至关重要的情况下显示出了潜在的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy in Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy.

Introduction: This study primarily aims to investigate the suitability of Halcyon in the context of cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer by exploring the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of Halcyon plans with different arc configurations. Additionally, it compares these findings with the dosimetric indices and delivery efficiency of TrueBeam and TomoTherapy accelerators, focusing on their capability to optimize protection for organs at risk (OARs) while maintaining efficient treatment delivery strategies.

Methods: This retrospective study involved 26 patients diagnosed with cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer, and new radiotherapy plans were created using Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy. Dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics and delivery efficiency for plans involving different arc numbers on Halcyon (2, 3, and 4 arcs) were compared with those from TrueBeam and TomoTherapy. T-tests were employed to evaluate differences in organ protection among the accelerators.

Results: The Halcyon plans, especially those with 4 arcs, provided superior protection for organs at risk, including the heart, lungs, and spinal cord, while maintaining excellent delivery efficiency. Compared to TrueBeam 2arc plans and TomoTherapy helical plans, Halcyon plans with 3 arcs also showed slight advantages. Although TomoTherapy offered better uniformity in dose distribution, it did not demonstrate a clear advantage over the other accelerators in terms of OAR protection or treatment efficiency. Furthermore, despite the lack of clear advantages in TrueBeam 2arc plans with flattening filter (FF), TrueBeam with flattening filter free (FFF) plans may hold potential in the treatment.

Conclusion: Halcyon, particularly with 4 arcs, offers an optimal balance between reducing toxicity to organs at risk and maintaining treatment efficiency, making it a preferred choice in cervical thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy. The findings highlight the need for careful selection of radiotherapy accelerators based on specific clinical goals, with Halcyon showing potential advantages in scenarios where both treatment efficiency and OAR protection are paramount.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (TCRT) is a JCR-ranked, broad-spectrum, open access, peer-reviewed publication whose aim is to provide researchers and clinicians with a platform to share and discuss developments in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信