局部复发鼻咽癌患者再程放疗技术的剂量学参数比较

发布时间：2018-08-03 13:01

【摘要】：目的:比较容积旋转调强(VMAT)、固定野调强(IMRT)和三维适形(3D-CRT)放疗技术在局部复发鼻咽癌患者治疗中的剂量学参数,分析3种治疗计划的剂量学特性。方法:选择12例局部复发的鼻咽癌患者,采用Pinnacle 9.2和Preciseplan 2.03治疗计划系统,每例患者均设计VMATIMRT和3D-CRT,比较3组计划的剂量分布及危及器官受量等。结果:VMAT及IMRT组适形度指数(CI)相似,但均优于3D-CRT组,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。3组计划的靶区不均匀指数(HI)相近,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。3D-CRT组机器跳数(MU)及出束时间优于其他2组,VMAT组优于IMRT组,组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。危及器官受量,3组计划脑干及晶体受量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);VMAT组和IMRT组脊髓、视神经、视交叉和大脑颞叶的受量明显优于3D-CRT组,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),但VMAT组与IMRT组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:3种放疗技术的治疗计划剂量分布有差异,VMAT与IMRT计划均能较好覆盖靶区,并减少周围正常组织受量,满足临床需求。VMAT计划的靶区适形度、MU和出束时间优于IMRT计划。3D-CRT仅在MU和治疗时间上有优势。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the dosimetric parameters of volume rotation intensity modulated (VMAT),) fixed field intensity modulated (IMRT) and three dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) radiotherapy in patients with locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and to analyze the dosimetric characteristics of the three treatment plans. Methods: twelve patients with locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma were selected and treated with Pinnacle 9.2 and Preciseplan 2.03. VMAT?IMRT and 3D-CRT were designed for each patient. Results the conformability index (CI) of the two groups was similar to that of the IMRT group, but it was better than that of the 3D-CRT group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P0.05). The target heterogeneity index (HI) of group 3 was similar to that of the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P0.05). 3D-CRT group machine jump number (MU) and beam out time were better than the other two groups VMAT group was better than IMRT group, the difference between groups were statistically significant (P0.05). There was no significant difference in the intake of planned brainstem and lens between the three groups (P0.05). The amount of spinal cord, optic nerve, optic chiasma and temporal lobe of cerebrum in VMAT group and IMRT group was significantly higher than that in 3D-CRT group. There was significant difference between groups (P0.05), but there was no significant difference between VMAT group and IMRT group (P0.05). Conclusion there are differences in dose distribution between the three kinds of radiotherapy techniques. Both VMAT and IMRT can cover the target area and reduce the normal tissue intake. The conformal degree of target MU and the time of beam exit were better than that of IMRT plan. 3D-CRT only had advantages in MU and treatment time.
【作者单位】：吉林省肿瘤医院放疗三科;
【基金】：吉林省科技厅自然科学基金资助课题(201015235)
【分类号】：R739.63

【相似文献】