S. Quoc, Q. Vinh, Cuong Bui Xuan, T. Van, Truong Vu
{"title":"全脑放疗计划技术分析","authors":"S. Quoc, Q. Vinh, Cuong Bui Xuan, T. Van, Truong Vu","doi":"10.4236/ijmpcero.2020.91001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: This study compares data between the Field in Field planning and Wedge planning techniques to figure out which technique has better dose coverage and distribution for PTV, and, if using FiF technique for whole brain treatment, how many beams will have better plan. Methods: 56 patients, who need to radiate whole brain with 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been selected for this study. Four plans have been made for each patient (FiF1—one subfield per field plan, FiF2—two subfields per field plan, FiF3—three subfields per field plan, and a Wedge plan). Results: The results of Field in Field plans including Compare dose distribution on the transverse CT slice, plan evaluation using DVH, number MU of plan, Dmax, HI, HTCI, DmaxPTV, DmeanPTV. Volume of PTV with the dose over 105% prescribed dose, dose of organ at risk, and Quality Assurance (QA) plan, are better than those of Wedge plan. Conclusions: Plans using Field in Field technique has better coverage, is more homogeneous in dose distribution than plan using Wedge technique. When using Field in Field technique for whole brain radiotherapy, using three subfields per field has better result than two subfields per field and one subfield per field.","PeriodicalId":14028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing Planning Techniques for Whole Brain Radiotherapy\",\"authors\":\"S. Quoc, Q. Vinh, Cuong Bui Xuan, T. Van, Truong Vu\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/ijmpcero.2020.91001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: This study compares data between the Field in Field planning and Wedge planning techniques to figure out which technique has better dose coverage and distribution for PTV, and, if using FiF technique for whole brain treatment, how many beams will have better plan. Methods: 56 patients, who need to radiate whole brain with 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been selected for this study. Four plans have been made for each patient (FiF1—one subfield per field plan, FiF2—two subfields per field plan, FiF3—three subfields per field plan, and a Wedge plan). Results: The results of Field in Field plans including Compare dose distribution on the transverse CT slice, plan evaluation using DVH, number MU of plan, Dmax, HI, HTCI, DmaxPTV, DmeanPTV. Volume of PTV with the dose over 105% prescribed dose, dose of organ at risk, and Quality Assurance (QA) plan, are better than those of Wedge plan. Conclusions: Plans using Field in Field technique has better coverage, is more homogeneous in dose distribution than plan using Wedge technique. When using Field in Field technique for whole brain radiotherapy, using three subfields per field has better result than two subfields per field and one subfield per field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"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.2020.91001\",\"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.2020.91001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的:本研究将Field in Field计划和Wedge计划技术的数据进行比较,找出哪种技术对PTV有更好的剂量覆盖和分布,以及如果使用FiF技术进行全脑治疗,有多少束更好的计划。方法:选择56例需要30 Gy/10次全脑放射治疗的患者作为研究对象。为每位患者制定了四项计划(fif1 -每个领域计划一个子领域,fif2 -每个领域计划两个子领域,fif3 -每个领域计划三个子领域,以及一个Wedge计划)。结果:Field - in - Field方案的结果包括比较CT横切面剂量分布、DVH评价方案、方案MU数、Dmax、HI、HTCI、DmaxPTV、DmeanPTV。剂量大于105%的PTV体积、危及器官剂量、质量保证(QA)方案优于Wedge方案。结论:采用场中技术的方案比采用楔形技术的方案覆盖率高,剂量分布均匀。采用场中野技术进行全脑放疗时,每野三个子野比每野两个子野和每野一个子野效果更好。
Analyzing Planning Techniques for Whole Brain Radiotherapy
Aims: This study compares data between the Field in Field planning and Wedge planning techniques to figure out which technique has better dose coverage and distribution for PTV, and, if using FiF technique for whole brain treatment, how many beams will have better plan. Methods: 56 patients, who need to radiate whole brain with 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been selected for this study. Four plans have been made for each patient (FiF1—one subfield per field plan, FiF2—two subfields per field plan, FiF3—three subfields per field plan, and a Wedge plan). Results: The results of Field in Field plans including Compare dose distribution on the transverse CT slice, plan evaluation using DVH, number MU of plan, Dmax, HI, HTCI, DmaxPTV, DmeanPTV. Volume of PTV with the dose over 105% prescribed dose, dose of organ at risk, and Quality Assurance (QA) plan, are better than those of Wedge plan. Conclusions: Plans using Field in Field technique has better coverage, is more homogeneous in dose distribution than plan using Wedge technique. When using Field in Field technique for whole brain radiotherapy, using three subfields per field has better result than two subfields per field and one subfield per field.