Du Yunlong, W. Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Bao-lin, Cai Boning, D. Xiangkun, Ge Ruigang, Xu Wei, Xu Shouping
{"title":"TF-3DCRT、fif -正向IMRT和FF逆优化IMRT在保乳治疗中的剂量学评价","authors":"Du Yunlong, W. Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Bao-lin, Cai Boning, D. Xiangkun, Ge Ruigang, Xu Wei, Xu Shouping","doi":"10.11648/J.CRJ.20190704.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (p<0.001), the CIs of dose distribution and the target were 0.40±0.12 vs 0.48±0.12 vs 0.57±0.12 (p<0.01), and the HIs were 0.20±0.02 vs 0.13±0.02 vs 0.17±0.02 (p<0.01). Compared with TF and FFIO, FIF-IMRT showed smaller in the dose of D2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.","PeriodicalId":9422,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Research Journal","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment\",\"authors\":\"Du Yunlong, W. Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Bao-lin, Cai Boning, D. Xiangkun, Ge Ruigang, Xu Wei, Xu Shouping\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/J.CRJ.20190704.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (p<0.001), the CIs of dose distribution and the target were 0.40±0.12 vs 0.48±0.12 vs 0.57±0.12 (p<0.01), and the HIs were 0.20±0.02 vs 0.13±0.02 vs 0.17±0.02 (p<0.01). Compared with TF and FFIO, FIF-IMRT showed smaller in the dose of D2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.CRJ.20190704.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.CRJ.20190704.12","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:比较切向场三维适形放疗(TF- 3dcrt, TF)、场内调强放疗(FIF- imrt, FIF)和固定场反向优化调强放疗(FFIO- imrt, FFIO)保乳治疗的剂量学特征,探讨三种技术的效益和效率。材料与方法:分析保乳术后16例乳腺患者(右侧8例,左侧8例)的TF-3DCRT、FIF-IMRT、FFIO-IMRT治疗方案。靶和危险器官(OARs)由同一位医生在CT图像中勾画。处方剂量50Gy/25f。TF-3DCRT和FIF-IMRT采用Varian Eclipse Ver10.0规划系统设计,FFIO-IMRT采用Pinnacle Ver9.6规划系统设计。根据剂量-体积直方图(DVH)分析PTV均匀性和符合性指数(HI和CI)以及OARs剂量和体积参数对各治疗方案进行比较,并评价疗效。结果:在所有病例中,TF-3DCRT、FIF和FFIO-IMRT的治疗方案差异均有统计学意义。MUs分别为244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (p<0.001),剂量分布和靶区CIs分别为0.40±0.12 vs 0.48±0.12 vs 0.57±0.12 (p<0.01), HIs分别为0.20±0.02 vs 0.13±0.02 vs 0.17±0.02 (p<0.01)。与TF和FFIO相比,FIF-IMRT在靶区D2剂量和V107、V110体积上均较小。相对于TF和FIF技术,FFIO-IMRT普遍提高了同侧肺的D均值、V10和V20、对侧乳腺的D1以及对侧肺、心脏、食道和脊髓的平均剂量。结论:在保乳放疗中,FIF-IMRT提高了剂量分配的整体质量和给药效率,患者最有可能从FIF-IMRT中获益。
Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment
Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (p<0.001), the CIs of dose distribution and the target were 0.40±0.12 vs 0.48±0.12 vs 0.57±0.12 (p<0.01), and the HIs were 0.20±0.02 vs 0.13±0.02 vs 0.17±0.02 (p<0.01). Compared with TF and FFIO, FIF-IMRT showed smaller in the dose of D2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.