头颈部分割立体定向放射治疗的三种先进放射治疗方式的治疗方案比较

He Wang, James Yang, Xiaodong Zhang, Jing Li, S. Frank, Zhongxiang Zhao, D. Luo, X. Zhu, Congjun Wang, S. Tung, A. Garden, D. Rosenthal, C. Fuller, G. Gunn, A. Ghia, J. Reddy, S. Raza, F. D. Monte, M. Chambers, P. Brown, S. Su, J. Phan
{"title":"头颈部分割立体定向放射治疗的三种先进放射治疗方式的治疗方案比较","authors":"He Wang, James Yang, Xiaodong Zhang, Jing Li, S. Frank, Zhongxiang Zhao, D. Luo, X. Zhu, Congjun Wang, S. Tung, A. Garden, D. Rosenthal, C. Fuller, G. Gunn, A. Ghia, J. Reddy, S. Raza, F. D. Monte, M. Chambers, P. Brown, S. Su, J. Phan","doi":"10.4236/IJMPCERO.2019.82010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (FSRS) can be given with at least three modalities: Gamma Knife, with the noninvasive frameless extend system (GKE); linear accelerator-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT); and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We extracted treatment plans for patients who had received FSRS with GKE for recurrent skull base or intracranial tumors, created corresponding plans for VMAT and IMPT, and compared the quality of the three sets of plans. Methods and materials: Plans were extracted for 9 patients with recurrent malignant skull-base tumors (n = 6) or large intracranial tumors (n = 3) who had received FSRS with GKE (median dose 24 Gy in 3 fractions) in 2013 through 2015. Plans for VMAT were generated with a TrueBeam STx LINAC machine using 6-MV photons, and plans for IMPT were generated with multi-field optimization. The optimized VMAT and IMPT plans were normalized to achieve the best possible target coverage while meeting the same dose-volume constraints on organs at risk (OARs) as the GKE plans. Plans were evaluated on the basis of target coverage, conformity index, homogeneity index, gradient index, and treatment efficiency. Results: The median target volume was 10.2 cm3 (range 1.9 - 33.8 cm3). The VMAT and IMPT plans met all OAR constraints, and target coverage and conformity were comparable among all plans. VMAT and IMPT plans showed significantly better target uniformity and treatment delivery efficiency (P < 0.001). The gradient index and low-dose-bath were superior in the GKE plans (P < 0.001), indicating smaller irradiated volumes. When inverse planning was used, VMAT plans could achieve a similar or steeper dose drop-off at the target-OAR boundary than GKE plans. Conclusion: FSRS for skull base and large intracranial lesions delivered by VMAT and IMPT can achieve comparable target coverage, conformity, and sparing of critical structure as the GKE while providing superior target uniformity and treatment delivery efficiency. The GKE had superior high-dose gradients outside the target and thus better protected surrounding normal structures.","PeriodicalId":14028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment-Plan Comparison of Three Advanced Radiation Treatment Modalities for Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy to the Head and Neck\",\"authors\":\"He Wang, James Yang, Xiaodong Zhang, Jing Li, S. Frank, Zhongxiang Zhao, D. Luo, X. Zhu, Congjun Wang, S. Tung, A. Garden, D. Rosenthal, C. Fuller, G. Gunn, A. Ghia, J. Reddy, S. Raza, F. D. Monte, M. Chambers, P. Brown, S. Su, J. Phan\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/IJMPCERO.2019.82010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (FSRS) can be given with at least three modalities: Gamma Knife, with the noninvasive frameless extend system (GKE); linear accelerator-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT); and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We extracted treatment plans for patients who had received FSRS with GKE for recurrent skull base or intracranial tumors, created corresponding plans for VMAT and IMPT, and compared the quality of the three sets of plans. Methods and materials: Plans were extracted for 9 patients with recurrent malignant skull-base tumors (n = 6) or large intracranial tumors (n = 3) who had received FSRS with GKE (median dose 24 Gy in 3 fractions) in 2013 through 2015. Plans for VMAT were generated with a TrueBeam STx LINAC machine using 6-MV photons, and plans for IMPT were generated with multi-field optimization. The optimized VMAT and IMPT plans were normalized to achieve the best possible target coverage while meeting the same dose-volume constraints on organs at risk (OARs) as the GKE plans. Plans were evaluated on the basis of target coverage, conformity index, homogeneity index, gradient index, and treatment efficiency. Results: The median target volume was 10.2 cm3 (range 1.9 - 33.8 cm3). The VMAT and IMPT plans met all OAR constraints, and target coverage and conformity were comparable among all plans. VMAT and IMPT plans showed significantly better target uniformity and treatment delivery efficiency (P < 0.001). The gradient index and low-dose-bath were superior in the GKE plans (P < 0.001), indicating smaller irradiated volumes. When inverse planning was used, VMAT plans could achieve a similar or steeper dose drop-off at the target-OAR boundary than GKE plans. Conclusion: FSRS for skull base and large intracranial lesions delivered by VMAT and IMPT can achieve comparable target coverage, conformity, and sparing of critical structure as the GKE while providing superior target uniformity and treatment delivery efficiency. The GKE had superior high-dose gradients outside the target and thus better protected surrounding normal structures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/IJMPCERO.2019.82010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/IJMPCERO.2019.82010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:分形立体定向放射手术(FSRS)至少可采用三种方式:伽玛刀,无创无框延伸系统(GKE);基于线性加速器的体积调制电弧治疗(VMAT);和调强质子治疗(IMPT)。我们提取了颅底或颅内复发性肿瘤接受FSRS合并GKE的患者的治疗方案,制定了相应的VMAT和IMPT方案,并比较了三套方案的质量。方法与材料:选取2013 - 2015年9例复发性颅底恶性肿瘤患者(n = 6)或颅内大肿瘤患者(n = 3),采用FSRS联合GKE(3次中位剂量24 Gy)。使用TrueBeam STx LINAC机器,使用6 mv光子生成VMAT图,使用多场优化生成IMPT图。将优化的VMAT和IMPT计划归一化,以实现最佳的目标覆盖,同时满足与GKE计划相同的危及器官剂量-体积限制。根据目标覆盖率、符合性指数、均匀性指数、梯度指数和治疗效率对方案进行评价。结果:靶体积中位数为10.2 cm3 (1.9 - 33.8 cm3)。VMAT和IMPT计划满足所有OAR约束,所有计划的目标覆盖率和符合性具有可比性。VMAT计划和IMPT计划的靶均匀性和治疗递送效率显著提高(P < 0.001)。梯度指数和低剂量浴在GKE方案中更优越(P < 0.001),表明辐照体积更小。当使用反向规划时,VMAT计划在目标-桨叶边界处的剂量衰减与GKE计划相似或更陡峭。结论:VMAT和IMPT对颅底及颅内大病变的FSRS治疗可达到与GKE相当的靶标覆盖、一致性和关键结构的保留,同时具有优越的靶标均匀性和治疗递送效率。GKE在靶外具有优越的高剂量梯度,因此能更好地保护周围正常结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment-Plan Comparison of Three Advanced Radiation Treatment Modalities for Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy to the Head and Neck
Purpose: Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (FSRS) can be given with at least three modalities: Gamma Knife, with the noninvasive frameless extend system (GKE); linear accelerator-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT); and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We extracted treatment plans for patients who had received FSRS with GKE for recurrent skull base or intracranial tumors, created corresponding plans for VMAT and IMPT, and compared the quality of the three sets of plans. Methods and materials: Plans were extracted for 9 patients with recurrent malignant skull-base tumors (n = 6) or large intracranial tumors (n = 3) who had received FSRS with GKE (median dose 24 Gy in 3 fractions) in 2013 through 2015. Plans for VMAT were generated with a TrueBeam STx LINAC machine using 6-MV photons, and plans for IMPT were generated with multi-field optimization. The optimized VMAT and IMPT plans were normalized to achieve the best possible target coverage while meeting the same dose-volume constraints on organs at risk (OARs) as the GKE plans. Plans were evaluated on the basis of target coverage, conformity index, homogeneity index, gradient index, and treatment efficiency. Results: The median target volume was 10.2 cm3 (range 1.9 - 33.8 cm3). The VMAT and IMPT plans met all OAR constraints, and target coverage and conformity were comparable among all plans. VMAT and IMPT plans showed significantly better target uniformity and treatment delivery efficiency (P < 0.001). The gradient index and low-dose-bath were superior in the GKE plans (P < 0.001), indicating smaller irradiated volumes. When inverse planning was used, VMAT plans could achieve a similar or steeper dose drop-off at the target-OAR boundary than GKE plans. Conclusion: FSRS for skull base and large intracranial lesions delivered by VMAT and IMPT can achieve comparable target coverage, conformity, and sparing of critical structure as the GKE while providing superior target uniformity and treatment delivery efficiency. The GKE had superior high-dose gradients outside the target and thus better protected surrounding normal structures.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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