摘要
目的探讨Eclipse(Version 10.0)治疗计划系统基准剂量补偿计划功能(base dose plan,BDP)用于食管癌术后调强放疗(intensity modulated radiation therapy,IMRT)的剂量学特点。方法食管癌术后患者12例,分别制订IMRT计划和基于基准剂量补偿的IMRT(BDP-IMRT)计划,比较2种方法下计划靶区和危及器官剂量体积参数、正常组织低剂量区域和机器跳数(monitor units,MU)。结果 BDP-IMRT下计划靶区平均剂量(Dmean)[(51.11±0.36)Gy],近似最大剂量(D2)[(52.14±0.60)Gy]低于IMRT[(51.68±0.27)、(53.36±0.46)Gy],近似最低剂量(D98)[(49.58±0.21)Gy]高于IMRT[(49.27±0.17)Gy],适形指数(conformity index,CI)(0.87±0.03)高于IMRT(0.83±0.03),剂量均匀性指数(heterogeneity index,HI)(0.05±0.01)低于IMRT(0.08±0.01),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);BDP-IMRT下肺V5[(72.16±14.59)%]、V10[(48.84±8.34)%]低于IMRT[(72.88±15.04)%、(50.26±9.65)%](P<0.05),V30[(6.93±3.06)%]高于IMRT[(6.43±2.70)%](P<0.05);BDP-IMRT下正常组织低剂量区域V15[(23.63±4.90)%]、V20[(16.92±4.05)%]低于IMRT[(24.17±4.95)%、(17.55±3.99)%](P<0.05),V5、V10、V30比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);BDP-IMRT和IMRT下心脏Dmean、V20、V30、V40、V50比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),脊髓计划区和脊髓Dmax比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);IMRT下MU(844.00±180.00)低于BDP-IMRT(966.00±217.00)(P<0.05)。结论 IMRT和BDP-IMRT计划均能满足食管癌术后患者临床治疗需求,与IMRT计划比较,BDP-IMRT计划提高了靶区覆盖率和适形度,剂量学优势明显。
Objective To explore the dosimetric features of base dose plan （BDP） techniques in the Eclipse （Version 10.0） treatment planning system on the intensity modulated radiation therapy （IMRT） for esophageal carcinoma. Methods Twelve patients with esophageal carcinoma were treated by IMRT and BDP-IMRT. The dose-volume histogram parameters of planning target volume （PTV）, the organs at risk （OAR）, low dose volume of normal tissue and monitor units （MU） were compared between two different plans. Results The PTV of Dmean （（51. 11±0. 36） Gy） and D2 （（52. 14±0. 60） Gy） in BDP-IMRT group were significantly lower than those in IMRT group （（51. 68 ± 0. 27）, （53.36±0.46） Gy） （P〈0.05）. D98 （（49. 58±0. 21） Gy） was significantly higher in BDP-IMRT group than that in IMRT group （（49. 27±0. 17） Gy） （P〈0.05）. Conformity index （CI） （0. 87± 0. 03） was significantly higher and heterogeneity index （HI） （0.05 ± 0.01） was significantly lower in BDP-IMRT group than those in IMRT group （0.83 ± 0.03, 0.08±0.01） （P〈0.05）. The lungV5 （（72.16±14.59）%） andV10 （（48.84±8.34）%） were significantly lower in BDP-IMRT group than those in IMRT group （（72.88±15.04）%, （50.26±9.65）%） （P〈0.05）, and V30 （（6.93± 3.06）%） was significantly higher in BDP-IMRT group than that in IMRT plan （（6. 43±2. 70）%） （P〈0.05）. V15 （23.63±4.90）%） and V20 （（16. 92±4. 05）%） in normal tissue low dose area were lower in BDP IMRT group than those in IMRT group （（24.17±4.95）±, （17.55±3.99）%） （P〈0.05）. There were no significant differences in V5, V10 or V30 in normal tissue low-dose area, I）mean, V20, V30, V40 or V5 in heart, and Dmax in spinal cord and spinal cord-PRV between two group （P〉0.05）. MU （844. 00± 180. 00） was significantly lower in IMRT plan than that in BDP-IMRT plan （966.00± 217. 00） （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Both IMRT and BDP-IMRT plans can meet the clinical requirements. BDP-IMRT plan has better target conformity and homogeneity in comparison with IMRT plan, and has fine dosimetry.
出处
《中华实用诊断与治疗杂志》
2015年第11期1133-1135,共3页
Journal of Chinese Practical Diagnosis and Therapy
基金
广东省医学科研基金立项课题资助项目(A2014455)
关键词
食管癌
术后放疗
调强放疗
基于基准剂量补偿的调强放疗
Esophageal carcinoma
postoperative radiotherapy
intensity modulated radiotherapy
base dose plan of intensity modulated radiotherapy
