实用肿瘤学杂志
實用腫瘤學雜誌
실용종류학잡지
JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY
2014年
2期
140-143
,共4页
周媛媛%张思杏%郑青平%石成良%罗展雄%李旌%于斌%李中华
週媛媛%張思杏%鄭青平%石成良%囉展雄%李旌%于斌%李中華
주원원%장사행%정청평%석성량%라전웅%리정%우빈%리중화
胸中段食管癌%三维适形放疗%简化调强放疗%剂量学
胸中段食管癌%三維適形放療%簡化調彊放療%劑量學
흉중단식관암%삼유괄형방료%간화조강방료%제량학
Middle-third esopheagal cancer%Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy%Simplified in-tensity modulated radiotherapy%Dosimetric comparison
目的：评估三维适形放疗与简化调强放疗两种不同放疗技术在胸中段食管癌放射治疗中的优缺点。方法20例胸中段食管癌患者分别进行3DCRT和sIMRT两种放疗计划设计，处方剂量均为66 Gy/33 f。比较两组计划的靶区与危及器官剂量学参数及加速器跳数（ MU）。结果 sIMRT在PTV的剂量覆盖、均一性及适形度均优于3DCRT（P＜0．05）；3DCRT与sIMRT的双肺V30 Gy及双肺V20 Gy分别为11．61±3．68 vs．10．33±3．02（P＝0．010）和23．37±8．38 vs．18．89±4．45（P＝0．001）。两组的双肺V5 Gy无显著性差异。3DCRT与sIMRT的MU分别为542．24±76．32和530．80±97．13（P＝0．677）。结论与3DCRT相比，sIMRT有较满意的PTV高剂量覆盖及均匀的剂量分布。在危及器官保护方面，sIM-RT的双肺高剂量区范围明显低于3DCRT。两组计划的MU无显著性差异。
目的：評估三維適形放療與簡化調彊放療兩種不同放療技術在胸中段食管癌放射治療中的優缺點。方法20例胸中段食管癌患者分彆進行3DCRT和sIMRT兩種放療計劃設計，處方劑量均為66 Gy/33 f。比較兩組計劃的靶區與危及器官劑量學參數及加速器跳數（ MU）。結果 sIMRT在PTV的劑量覆蓋、均一性及適形度均優于3DCRT（P＜0．05）；3DCRT與sIMRT的雙肺V30 Gy及雙肺V20 Gy分彆為11．61±3．68 vs．10．33±3．02（P＝0．010）和23．37±8．38 vs．18．89±4．45（P＝0．001）。兩組的雙肺V5 Gy無顯著性差異。3DCRT與sIMRT的MU分彆為542．24±76．32和530．80±97．13（P＝0．677）。結論與3DCRT相比，sIMRT有較滿意的PTV高劑量覆蓋及均勻的劑量分佈。在危及器官保護方麵，sIM-RT的雙肺高劑量區範圍明顯低于3DCRT。兩組計劃的MU無顯著性差異。
목적：평고삼유괄형방료여간화조강방료량충불동방료기술재흉중단식관암방사치료중적우결점。방법20례흉중단식관암환자분별진행3DCRT화sIMRT량충방료계화설계，처방제량균위66 Gy/33 f。비교량조계화적파구여위급기관제량학삼수급가속기도수（ MU）。결과 sIMRT재PTV적제량복개、균일성급괄형도균우우3DCRT（P＜0．05）；3DCRT여sIMRT적쌍폐V30 Gy급쌍폐V20 Gy분별위11．61±3．68 vs．10．33±3．02（P＝0．010）화23．37±8．38 vs．18．89±4．45（P＝0．001）。량조적쌍폐V5 Gy무현저성차이。3DCRT여sIMRT적MU분별위542．24±76．32화530．80±97．13（P＝0．677）。결론여3DCRT상비，sIMRT유교만의적PTV고제량복개급균균적제량분포。재위급기관보호방면，sIM-RT적쌍폐고제량구범위명현저우3DCRT。량조계화적MU무현저성차이。
Objective To compare the dose distribution between three dimensional conformal radiothera -py(3DCRT) and simplified intensity modulated radiotherapy ( sIMRT) for middle-third esopheagal cancer .Meth-ods Twenty middle-third esopheagal cancer patients were enrolled in this study .Dosimetric values for sIMRT and 3DCRT were calculated for total dose of 66 Gy using 2 Gy/day.The parameters included the conformal index (CI),homogeneity index(HI),mean dose and hot spot(V105%)for the planned target volume(PTV)as well as the monitor units(MUs)for plan efficiency,the mean dose(Dmean)for the organs at risk(OAR).The percentage of the normal lung volume receiving≥30,>20 and >5 Gy(V30 Gy,V20 Gy and V5 Gy)were evaluated to deter-mine lung toxity.Results sIMRT achieved significant better Dmin ,Dmean,V105%,HI,CI and spinal cord than 3DCRT(P<0.05).The normal lung V30 Gy and V20 Gy of 3DCRT and sIMRT were 11.61 ±3.68 vs.10.33 ± 3.02(P=0.010)and 23.37 ±8.38 vs.18.89 ±4.45(P=0.001),respectively.Comparable sparing of normal tissue including heart and the normal lung V 5 Gy with both two plans .The number of MU was 542 .24 ±76 .32 for 3DCRT and 530.8 ±97.13 for sIMRT(P=0.677).Conclusion sIMRT provides favorable tumor coverage , homogeneity and conformity and can get better normal lung sparing than 3DCRT.However sIMRT is not superior to 3DCRT in terms of treatment efficiency .
