中国医药
中國醫藥
중국의약
CHINA MEDICINE
2010年
12期
1182-1183
,共2页
张福正%邹勤舟%黄剑峰%车俊%范强%楚建军%赵的非%贺蓓娃
張福正%鄒勤舟%黃劍峰%車俊%範彊%楚建軍%趙的非%賀蓓娃
장복정%추근주%황검봉%차준%범강%초건군%조적비%하배왜
鼻咽肿瘤%常规放疗%调强放疗%放射治疗剂量
鼻嚥腫瘤%常規放療%調彊放療%放射治療劑量
비인종류%상규방료%조강방료%방사치료제량
Nasopharyngeal neoplasms%Conventional radiation therapy%Intensity modulated radiation therapy%Radiotherapy dosage
目的 比较鼻咽癌调强放疗和常规放疗时肿瘤和正常组织受照剂量的差异.方法 用CMS逆向治疗计划系统分别对30例T3N1M0鼻咽癌患者进行调强放疗和常规放疗计划设计,计算肿瘤和正常组织受照射剂量.结果 调强放疗与常规放疗肿瘤所接受的剂量无明显差别(P>0.05),射野内垂体和左右侧腮腺、颞叶、颞颌关节受照剂量低于常规放疗[(48.6±2.5)Gy比(62.5±4.8)Gy;(41.3±2.7)Gy比(67.7±2.6)Gy,(41.5±4.2)Gy比(66.0±2.7)Gy;(25.4±6.2)Gy比(56.3±1.4)Gy,(25.4±6.6)Gy比(56.1±1.5)Gy;(41.1±4.2)Gy比(62.5±5.9)Gy,(41.9±4.8)Gy比(60.1±10.0)Gy;P<0.05].结论 鼻咽癌调强放疗与常规放疗相比,肿瘤靶区剂量精确可靠,正常组织受照剂量得到有效控制.
目的 比較鼻嚥癌調彊放療和常規放療時腫瘤和正常組織受照劑量的差異.方法 用CMS逆嚮治療計劃繫統分彆對30例T3N1M0鼻嚥癌患者進行調彊放療和常規放療計劃設計,計算腫瘤和正常組織受照射劑量.結果 調彊放療與常規放療腫瘤所接受的劑量無明顯差彆(P>0.05),射野內垂體和左右側腮腺、顳葉、顳頜關節受照劑量低于常規放療[(48.6±2.5)Gy比(62.5±4.8)Gy;(41.3±2.7)Gy比(67.7±2.6)Gy,(41.5±4.2)Gy比(66.0±2.7)Gy;(25.4±6.2)Gy比(56.3±1.4)Gy,(25.4±6.6)Gy比(56.1±1.5)Gy;(41.1±4.2)Gy比(62.5±5.9)Gy,(41.9±4.8)Gy比(60.1±10.0)Gy;P<0.05].結論 鼻嚥癌調彊放療與常規放療相比,腫瘤靶區劑量精確可靠,正常組織受照劑量得到有效控製.
목적 비교비인암조강방료화상규방료시종류화정상조직수조제량적차이.방법 용CMS역향치료계화계통분별대30례T3N1M0비인암환자진행조강방료화상규방료계화설계,계산종류화정상조직수조사제량.결과 조강방료여상규방료종류소접수적제량무명현차별(P>0.05),사야내수체화좌우측시선、섭협、섭합관절수조제량저우상규방료[(48.6±2.5)Gy비(62.5±4.8)Gy;(41.3±2.7)Gy비(67.7±2.6)Gy,(41.5±4.2)Gy비(66.0±2.7)Gy;(25.4±6.2)Gy비(56.3±1.4)Gy,(25.4±6.6)Gy비(56.1±1.5)Gy;(41.1±4.2)Gy비(62.5±5.9)Gy,(41.9±4.8)Gy비(60.1±10.0)Gy;P<0.05].결론 비인암조강방료여상규방료상비,종류파구제량정학가고,정상조직수조제량득도유효공제.
Objective To study and compare the dose difference of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional radiation therapy(CRT) affecting tumor and normal tissues. Methods Thirty nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in stage T3N1M0 received IMRT and CRT with CMS system. The dose affecting tumor and normal tissues was calculated respectively. Results There was no significant difference of the dose between IMRT and CRT, but the dose affecting the normal tissue was lower in IMRT than that in CRT. Conclusions The dose distribution to tumor target area is more precise with IMRT than that with CRT. The dose to the normal tissues is controlled more effectively with IMRT than that with CRT.