空间分割放射治疗中IMRT和VMAT技术的剂量学特征

IF 2.5 4区综合性期刊 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences Pub Date : 2025-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jrras.2025.101898

Shuangtong Liu , Xin Huang , Shanshan Yin , Minghan Qiu , Zhitao Dai , Hui Wang

{"title":"空间分割放射治疗中IMRT和VMAT技术的剂量学特征","authors":"Shuangtong Liu , Xin Huang , Shanshan Yin , Minghan Qiu , Zhitao Dai , Hui Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jrras.2025.101898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Object</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the differences in plan quality metrics between three main methods of radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy - Sliding Window (IMRT-SW), and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy - Multiple Static Segments (IMRT-MSS) for spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) planning in the radiotherapy department of Tianjin Union Medical Center using the Eclipse 15.5 treatment planning system.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>SFRT plans of ten Patients were designed using coplanar IMRT-MSS,IMRT-SW and VMAT techniques, A total of 45 plans were created with collimator angles set to 315°, 0°, 45°, and 90°, utilizing evenly distributed fields within 360°. VMAT plans employed four full arc, while IMRT plan were divided into four groups based on field spacing of 30°, 22.5°, 15°, and 10°.Plan quality was assessed and compared using metrics include Peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), peak dose, lattice spheres coefficient of variation(CV), Conformity Index(CI), Gradient Measure(GM), Mean Dose to Normal Tissue(D<sub>mean,NT</sub>), gamma passing rates(GPR), monitor units (MU), and the MU Percentage for each Collimator Angle.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>VMAT group exhibited a significantly elevated PVDR and peak dose, with the worst-case CV values. VMAT demonstrates a progressive enhancement in PVDR superiority compared to IMRT as the lattice point number decrease(≤10–15 points). The IMRT-MSS group generally shows higher PVDR than the IMRT-SW group. VMAT group demonstrated significant advantages in CI, GM, MU efficiency, and acceptable GPR, while the IMRT-MSS cohort outperformed IMRT-SW in these parameters. Collimator angles of 45° and 315° were found to be particularly significant in SFRT plan.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>VMAT demonstrates overall superior performance compared to IMRT, particularly with reduced lattice point density or in superficial convex-shaped tumors. For SFRT of large-volume tumors (lattice point counts>15), we recommend VMAT implementation with controlled lattice points for improved PVDR.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences","volume":"18 4","pages":"Article 101898"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric characteristics of IMRT and VMAT techniques for spatially fractionated radiation therapy\",\"authors\":\"Shuangtong Liu , Xin Huang , Shanshan Yin , Minghan Qiu , Zhitao Dai , Hui Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jrras.2025.101898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Object</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the differences in plan quality metrics between three main methods of radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy - Sliding Window (IMRT-SW), and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy - Multiple Static Segments (IMRT-MSS) for spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) planning in the radiotherapy department of Tianjin Union Medical Center using the Eclipse 15.5 treatment planning system.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>SFRT plans of ten Patients were designed using coplanar IMRT-MSS,IMRT-SW and VMAT techniques, A total of 45 plans were created with collimator angles set to 315°, 0°, 45°, and 90°, utilizing evenly distributed fields within 360°. VMAT plans employed four full arc, while IMRT plan were divided into four groups based on field spacing of 30°, 22.5°, 15°, and 10°.Plan quality was assessed and compared using metrics include Peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), peak dose, lattice spheres coefficient of variation(CV), Conformity Index(CI), Gradient Measure(GM), Mean Dose to Normal Tissue(D<sub>mean,NT</sub>), gamma passing rates(GPR), monitor units (MU), and the MU Percentage for each Collimator Angle.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>VMAT group exhibited a significantly elevated PVDR and peak dose, with the worst-case CV values. VMAT demonstrates a progressive enhancement in PVDR superiority compared to IMRT as the lattice point number decrease(≤10–15 points). The IMRT-MSS group generally shows higher PVDR than the IMRT-SW group. VMAT group demonstrated significant advantages in CI, GM, MU efficiency, and acceptable GPR, while the IMRT-MSS cohort outperformed IMRT-SW in these parameters. Collimator angles of 45° and 315° were found to be particularly significant in SFRT plan.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>VMAT demonstrates overall superior performance compared to IMRT, particularly with reduced lattice point density or in superficial convex-shaped tumors. For SFRT of large-volume tumors (lattice point counts>15), we recommend VMAT implementation with controlled lattice points for improved PVDR.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences\",\"volume\":\"18 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 101898\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850725006107\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850725006107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的利用Eclipse 15.5治疗计划系统，评价天津协和医疗中心放射科空间分割放疗（SFRT）计划中体积调制弧线治疗（VMAT）、调强放射治疗-滑动窗口（IMRT-SW）和调强放射治疗-多静态段（IMRT-MSS）三种主要放疗方法在计划质量指标上的差异。方法采用共面IMRT-MSS、IMRT-SW和VMAT技术设计10例患者的ssfrt计划，共创建45个计划，准直角度分别为315°、0°、45°和90°，利用360°范围内均匀分布的视场。VMAT方案采用4个全弧度，IMRT方案根据场间距分为30°、22.5°、15°和10°四组。评估和比较计划质量的指标包括峰谷剂量比（PVDR）、峰值剂量、晶格球变异系数（CV）、符合性指数（CI）、梯度测量（GM）、正常组织平均剂量（Dmean，NT）、伽马通过率（GPR）、监测单位（MU）和每个准直器角度的MU百分比。结果vmat组PVDR和峰值剂量显著升高，CV值最坏。VMAT与IMRT相比，随着点位个数的减少（≤10-15个点），PVDR优势逐渐增强。IMRT-MSS组的PVDR一般高于IMRT-SW组。VMAT组在CI、GM、MU效率和可接受的GPR方面具有显著优势，而IMRT-MSS组在这些参数上优于IMRT-SW。45°和315°的准直角在SFRT方案中尤为显著。结论vmat在整体上优于IMRT，特别是在晶格点密度降低或浅表凸形肿瘤中。对于大体积肿瘤的SFRT（晶格点计数>；15），我们建议使用控制晶格点的VMAT来改善PVDR。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Dosimetric characteristics of IMRT and VMAT techniques for spatially fractionated radiation therapy

Object

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in plan quality metrics between three main methods of radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy - Sliding Window (IMRT-SW), and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy - Multiple Static Segments (IMRT-MSS) for spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) planning in the radiotherapy department of Tianjin Union Medical Center using the Eclipse 15.5 treatment planning system.

Methods

SFRT plans of ten Patients were designed using coplanar IMRT-MSS,IMRT-SW and VMAT techniques, A total of 45 plans were created with collimator angles set to 315°, 0°, 45°, and 90°, utilizing evenly distributed fields within 360°. VMAT plans employed four full arc, while IMRT plan were divided into four groups based on field spacing of 30°, 22.5°, 15°, and 10°.Plan quality was assessed and compared using metrics include Peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), peak dose, lattice spheres coefficient of variation(CV), Conformity Index(CI), Gradient Measure(GM), Mean Dose to Normal Tissue(D_mean,NT), gamma passing rates(GPR), monitor units (MU), and the MU Percentage for each Collimator Angle.

Results

VMAT group exhibited a significantly elevated PVDR and peak dose, with the worst-case CV values. VMAT demonstrates a progressive enhancement in PVDR superiority compared to IMRT as the lattice point number decrease(≤10–15 points). The IMRT-MSS group generally shows higher PVDR than the IMRT-SW group. VMAT group demonstrated significant advantages in CI, GM, MU efficiency, and acceptable GPR, while the IMRT-MSS cohort outperformed IMRT-SW in these parameters. Collimator angles of 45° and 315° were found to be particularly significant in SFRT plan.

Conclusion

VMAT demonstrates overall superior performance compared to IMRT, particularly with reduced lattice point density or in superficial convex-shaped tumors. For SFRT of large-volume tumors (lattice point counts>15), we recommend VMAT implementation with controlled lattice points for improved PVDR.

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

Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-

自引率

5.90%

发文量

130

审稿时长

16 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences provides a high quality medium for the publication of substantial, original and scientific and technological papers on the development and applications of nuclear, radiation and isotopes in biology, medicine, drugs, biochemistry, microbiology, agriculture, entomology, food technology, chemistry, physics, solid states, engineering, environmental and applied sciences.