中华放射肿瘤学杂志
中華放射腫瘤學雜誌
중화방사종류학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY
2011年
2期
156-159
,共4页
王佳舟%陈俊超%李龙根%徐志勇
王佳舟%陳俊超%李龍根%徐誌勇
왕가주%진준초%리룡근%서지용
感兴趣区%体积计算%治疗计划系统%放射疗法
感興趣區%體積計算%治療計劃繫統%放射療法
감흥취구%체적계산%치료계화계통%방사요법
Region of interest%Volume calculation%Treatment planning system%Radiotherapy
目的 分析Pinnacle与Eclipse计划系统在计算靶区与正常器官感兴趣区(ROI)体积上的差异,为临床应用提供参考.方法 在Pinnacle计划系统上、在层厚分别为1、3、5mm的CT上分别勾画1、2、5个层面的正方形和圆形ROI.同时选取头、胸、腹部肿瘤病例各5例.在患者CT上勾画常见的正常器官ROI.将图像和ROI通过DICOM协议传输至Pinnacle和Eclipse计划系统,分析两种计划系统计算的ROI体积.结果 小体积的ROI两种计划系统计算结果有明显的差异,ROI体积越小体积差异越大(小体积相差12倍,大体积基本相同);体积计算的差异受许多因素的影响,感兴趣区的层数和几何体的大小与体积计算的差异显著线性相关(R2=1.000,P=0.000),CT层厚(R2=0.200,P=0.972)和几何体形状(R2=0.200,P=0.089)的对体积计算的差异的影响不显著.几何中心不一致对Pinnacle的ROI体积计算无影响,Eclipse的ROI体积计算有3%左右的增加.CT层厚与R0I体积呈正比(Pinnacle的R2=0.548,P=0.011;Eclipse的R2=0.502,P=0.027).对视交叉、视神经和晶体的体积差异均＞35%.结论 两种计划系统间传输ROI,特别是小体积ROI,需要注意两种计划系统在计算ROI体积时的差异.
目的 分析Pinnacle與Eclipse計劃繫統在計算靶區與正常器官感興趣區(ROI)體積上的差異,為臨床應用提供參攷.方法 在Pinnacle計劃繫統上、在層厚分彆為1、3、5mm的CT上分彆勾畫1、2、5箇層麵的正方形和圓形ROI.同時選取頭、胸、腹部腫瘤病例各5例.在患者CT上勾畫常見的正常器官ROI.將圖像和ROI通過DICOM協議傳輸至Pinnacle和Eclipse計劃繫統,分析兩種計劃繫統計算的ROI體積.結果 小體積的ROI兩種計劃繫統計算結果有明顯的差異,ROI體積越小體積差異越大(小體積相差12倍,大體積基本相同);體積計算的差異受許多因素的影響,感興趣區的層數和幾何體的大小與體積計算的差異顯著線性相關(R2=1.000,P=0.000),CT層厚(R2=0.200,P=0.972)和幾何體形狀(R2=0.200,P=0.089)的對體積計算的差異的影響不顯著.幾何中心不一緻對Pinnacle的ROI體積計算無影響,Eclipse的ROI體積計算有3%左右的增加.CT層厚與R0I體積呈正比(Pinnacle的R2=0.548,P=0.011;Eclipse的R2=0.502,P=0.027).對視交扠、視神經和晶體的體積差異均＞35%.結論 兩種計劃繫統間傳輸ROI,特彆是小體積ROI,需要註意兩種計劃繫統在計算ROI體積時的差異.
목적 분석Pinnacle여Eclipse계화계통재계산파구여정상기관감흥취구(ROI)체적상적차이,위림상응용제공삼고.방법 재Pinnacle계화계통상、재층후분별위1、3、5mm적CT상분별구화1、2、5개층면적정방형화원형ROI.동시선취두、흉、복부종류병례각5례.재환자CT상구화상견적정상기관ROI.장도상화ROI통과DICOM협의전수지Pinnacle화Eclipse계화계통,분석량충계화계통계산적ROI체적.결과 소체적적ROI량충계화계통계산결과유명현적차이,ROI체적월소체적차이월대(소체적상차12배,대체적기본상동);체적계산적차이수허다인소적영향,감흥취구적층수화궤하체적대소여체적계산적차이현저선성상관(R2=1.000,P=0.000),CT층후(R2=0.200,P=0.972)화궤하체형상(R2=0.200,P=0.089)적대체적계산적차이적영향불현저.궤하중심불일치대Pinnacle적ROI체적계산무영향,Eclipse적ROI체적계산유3%좌우적증가.CT층후여R0I체적정정비(Pinnacle적R2=0.548,P=0.011;Eclipse적R2=0.502,P=0.027).대시교차、시신경화정체적체적차이균＞35%.결론 량충계화계통간전수ROI,특별시소체적ROI,수요주의량충계화계통재계산ROI체적시적차이.
Objective To compare the difference region of interest volume (ROI) calculation method between Pinnacle and Eclipse treatment planning system. Methods To acquire CT image with 3 of slice thickness (1 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm). Delineate 1, 2 and 5 slices square and circle contours in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Meanwhile 15 cases that include 5 cases with head neck tumor, 5 with thorax tumor and 5 with abdomen tumor were selected. Those image and ROI were transfer to Eclipse treatment plan system by DICOM RT protocol . The ROI volume was compared between two TPS . Results For ROI with small volume, the volume difference between TPS was obvious (for small volume ROI have 12 times difference, for big volume ROI almost same). The volume difference between TPS was influenced by many factors. The number of ROI slice and the magnitude of ROI was related with the difference between TPS (R2 = 1. 000, P = 0. 000). The CT thickness (R2 = 0. 200, P = 0. 972 ) and the shape of ROI ( R2 =0. 200, P = 0. 089) were not significant factors. The center of ROI on different axis was not affect the volume calculation in Pinnacle, which cause 3% different in Eclipse. The CT thickness was proportional to the ROI volume ( Pinnacle R2 = 0. 548, P = 0. 011; Eclipse R2 = 0. 502, P = 0. 027 ). In clinical case, optic chiasm and Len averagely have more than 35% volume difference between those two TPS. Conclusions We should pay more attention about the difference volume calculation algorithm between Pinnacle and Eclipse,especially when transfer small volume ROI to another TPS, which may have significant difference.
