鼻咽癌旋转调强与固定野动态调强的剂量学比较研究
本文选题:快速旋转调强 + 动态调强 ; 参考:《南华大学》2011年硕士论文
【摘要】:固定野调强适形放疗(Intensity-modulated radiotherapy,IMRT)已广泛应用于鼻咽癌的治疗,但IMRT也存在总跳数过高,实际治疗时间较长等不足。近年,旋转调强放疗(Intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy,IMAT)开始应用于临床,国外已有不少体部肿瘤的相关报道,但头颈部特别是鼻咽肿瘤的报道较少。IMAT治疗鼻咽癌在剂量学方面是否优于调强放疗还有待进一步研究。国内个别中心已有初步结果,但尚缺乏多中心病例研究的支持,特别是各中心鼻咽癌的处方剂量存在差异,治疗计划设计也存在很大的人为因素,同时治疗实施的配套硬件也各有不同。因此有必要继续进行相关的研究,为进一步开展旋转调强技术提供临床支持。 本文通过收集湘雅肿瘤中心2010年10月至2011年2月期间经病理活检确诊的12例实施根治性放疗的鼻咽癌患者,经模拟CT扫描后传输图像至Varian Eclipse 8.6 TPS,勾画靶区及危及器官,对12例鼻咽癌患者分别采用瓦里安旋转调强(IMAT)技术RapidARC和固定野动态调强(dIMRT)方式设计同步推量放疗计划。在满足95%计划靶体积达处方剂量的情况下,比较两种计划的平均剂量体积直方图、靶区和危及器官剂量、正常组织、机器跳数和治疗时间。 研究结果表明RapidARC靶区受到的处方剂量与dIMRT相似,总体上靶区平均剂量、最大剂量和受照107%以上处方剂量的体积(V107)稍高于dIMRT;脊髓、视神经、晶体、颞颌关节等危及器官剂量学指标无统计学差异。脑干最大剂量RapidARC稍高于dIMRT。左、右腮腺平均剂量和50%腮腺受照的剂量(D50) RapidARC比dIMRT高。正常组织定义为体表轮廓区域(BODY)减去PTV,即[B-P]受照小于800cGy的体积RapidARC比dIMRT高,受照1200~4500cGy的体积RapidARC比dIMRT低。RapidARC比dIMRT的单次总机器跳数平均减少了61.9%,单次治疗时间平均减少了62.3%。 总之,两种计划剂量学存在一定差异,但都能满足临床要求,旋转调强减少了正常组织受量,显著降低了机器跳数,大大缩短了治疗时间。
[Abstract]:Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been widely used in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but IMRT also has some shortcomings, such as high total jump number and long actual treatment time. In recent years, Intensity-modulated arc radiation therapy (IMATT) has been used in clinical practice. However, there are few reports of head and neck tumors, especially nasopharynx tumors. Whether IMAT is better than intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma needs further study. Preliminary results have been obtained from individual centers in China, but there is a lack of support for multi-center case studies. In particular, there are differences in the prescription dose of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in different centers, and there are also a lot of human factors in the design of treatment plans. At the same time, treatment implementation of the supporting hardware is also different. Therefore, it is necessary to continue the related research to provide clinical support for the further development of rotational intensity modulation technology. From October 2010 to February 2011, 12 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) who underwent radical radiotherapy were collected from Xiangya Cancer Center from October 2010 to February 2011. The images were transmitted to Varian Eclipse 8.6TPS after simulated CT scanning, and the target areas and dangerous organs were delineated. Twelve patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma were treated with Varian rotation intensity modulation (RapidARC) and fixed field dynamic intensity modulation (IMRT). In the case of 95% target volume reaching the prescribed dose, the average dose volume histogram, target area and organ dose, normal tissue, machine hopping and treatment time of the two plans were compared. The results show that the prescription dose of RapidARC target area is similar to that of dIMRT, and the average dose, maximum dose and the volume of the prescription dose above 107% of the total target area are slightly higher than those of dIMRT, spinal cord, optic nerve, lens, etc. There was no statistical difference in dose indices of temporomandibular joint and other dangerous organs. The maximum dose of RapidARC in brain stem was slightly higher than that in dIMRT. The average dose of left and right parotid gland and the dose of 50% irradiation on parotid gland were higher than that of dIMRT. Normal tissue was defined as body surface contour area (BODY) minus PTVs, that is, the volume of [B-P] exposed to 800cGy was higher than that of dIMRT, and the volume of RapidARC of exposed 1200~4500cGy was lower than that of dIMRT. RapidARC reduced the average number of single total machine jumps by 61.9%, and the average time of single treatment was 62.3% lower than that of dIMRT. In a word, there are some differences between the two kinds of planned dosimetry, but both of them can meet the clinical requirements. Rotation intensity modulation can reduce the normal tissue intake, reduce the number of machine hops significantly, and shorten the treatment time greatly.
【学位授予单位】:南华大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2011
【分类号】:R739.63
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 云无心;;咸鱼,吃还是不吃?[J];抗癌之窗;2011年04期
2 刘永珍;章华;;PET-CT误诊鼻咽癌1例报道[J];中国耳鼻咽喉颅底外科杂志;2011年03期
3 陆颖;黄海欣;;紫杉醇联合奈达铂治疗转移性鼻咽癌的临床观察[J];现代肿瘤医学;2011年09期
4 黎秀伦;阮展鸿;黄华锦;林延梅;周克家;;127例鼻咽癌放射治疗后局部复发原因分析[J];广西医学;1995年04期
5 杜伟;张晓娟;范波胜;;22例鼻咽癌误诊为神经系统疾病分析[J];中国实用神经疾病杂志;2011年13期
6 胡幼青;刘华虹;喻琴;;50例鼻咽癌患者调强放射治疗的临床护理[J];江西医药;2011年06期
7 张弘;刘陶文;莫碧媛;马小燕;陈森;;鼻咽癌患者血浆可溶性P-选择素及组织型纤溶酶原激活物水平测定及意义[J];广西医科大学学报;2011年03期
8 高红芳;;心理护理在鼻咽癌整体挡铅技术中的应用[J];齐齐哈尔医学院学报;2011年11期
9 阚庆玲;;放疗辅以小剂量DDP化疗治疗鼻咽癌[J];求医问药(下半月);2011年02期
10 蒋春灵;付建华;;螺旋CT及MRI对鼻咽癌T分期的影响[J];实用癌症杂志;2011年04期
相关会议论文 前10条
1 王方正;付真富;王磊;朴永锋;花永虹;祝成龙;徐敏;陈伟军;;鼻咽癌四野适形放疗剂量学及技术研究[A];2009年浙江省放射肿瘤治疗学学术年会论文汇编[C];2009年
2 王方正;付真富;王磊;朴永锋;花永虹;祝成龙;徐敏;陈伟军;;鼻咽癌四野适形放疗剂量学及技术研究[A];中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会六届二次暨中国抗癌协会肿瘤放疗专业委员会二届二次学术会议论文集[C];2009年
3 陆中杰;卜路懿;;基于不同FOV大小重建CT图像同一治疗计划的剂量计算与评估[A];2009年浙江省放射肿瘤治疗学学术年会论文汇编[C];2009年
4 宋新貌;;鼻咽癌危险因素的流行病学调查[A];华东六省一市耳鼻咽喉-头颈外科学术会议暨2008年浙江省耳鼻咽喉-头颈外科学术年会论文汇编[C];2008年
5 孙颖;毛燕萍;李文斐;陈磊;刘立志;唐玲珑;曹素梅;林爱华;卢泰祥;刘孟忠;李立;洪明晃;马骏;;鼻咽癌2008分期的临床验证[A];中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会六届二次暨中国抗癌协会肿瘤放疗专业委员会二届二次学术会议论文集[C];2009年
6 许婷婷;胡超苏;高云生;张有望;应红梅;朱国培;吴永如;何霞云;孔琳;;化疗在T2bN1M0期鼻咽癌患者中的价值[A];中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会六届二次暨中国抗癌协会肿瘤放疗专业委员会二届二次学术会议论文集[C];2009年
7 张云霞;陆雪官;唐军;张力元;;~(99m)Tc-EC-MN SPE CT显像预测鼻咽癌乏氧的临床初步研究[A];中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会六届二次暨中国抗癌协会肿瘤放疗专业委员会二届二次学术会议论文集[C];2009年
8 蒋春灵;李金高;叶莘千;;鼻咽癌原发灶消退速度和肿瘤预后的关系[A];中华医学会肿瘤学分会第七届全国中青年肿瘤学术会议——中华医学会肿瘤学分会“中华肿瘤 明日之星”大型评选活动暨中青年委员全国遴选论文汇编[C];2011年
9 钟兴;徐浩;弓健;郭斌;;hNIS转染介导放射性核素显像和治疗鼻咽癌及其机制研究[A];中华医学会第九次全国核医学学术会议论文摘要汇编[C];2011年
10 朱小东;苏芳;曲颂;王琪;李力;张玮;;鼻咽癌患者放疗前后血清蛋白质谱变异性研究[A];中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会六届二次暨中国抗癌协会肿瘤放疗专业委员会二届二次学术会议论文集[C];2009年
相关重要报纸文章 前10条
1 湘雅二医院耳鼻喉科教授 曾益慈;如何早期发现鼻咽癌[N];大众卫生报;2001年
2 程心超;八大表现与鼻咽癌有关[N];健康报;2004年
3 刘江峰;如何早期发现鼻咽癌[N];健康报;2005年
4 主任医师:高春东;鼻咽癌有哪些表现[N];卫生与生活报;2004年
5 本报记者 黄R,
本文编号:1776674
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/yixuelunwen/yank/1776674.html