中华放射医学与防护杂志
中華放射醫學與防護雜誌
중화방사의학여방호잡지
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2014年
8期
597-600
,共4页
贾飞%岳海振%李国文%吴昊
賈飛%嶽海振%李國文%吳昊
가비%악해진%리국문%오호
非均整模式%容积旋转调强放疗%鼻咽癌%剂量学
非均整模式%容積鏇轉調彊放療%鼻嚥癌%劑量學
비균정모식%용적선전조강방료%비인암%제량학
Flattening filter-free%Volumetric modulated arc therapy%Nasopharyngeal carcinoma%Dosimetry
目的 比较加速器6MVX射线非均整模式(FFF)和均整模式(FF)下局部进展期鼻咽癌容积调强(VMAT)计划的剂量学差异.方法 选取10例已行放疗的局部进展期鼻咽癌患者,分别设计FFF和FF VMAT计划,在满足临床要求的情况下,比较两种计划的剂量体积直方图(DVH)、靶区剂量分布、危及器官受量、靶区适形度、总机器跳数和治疗时间.结果 两者均能满足临床治疗需求,FFF VMAT计划靶区最大剂量和平均剂量大于FF VMAT计划(t=-0.31、-0.35,P ＜0.05),而计划靶区适形度略低(t=5.42,P＜0.05),左右晶状体的最大剂量低于FF VMAT计划(t=25.87、17.45,P＜0.05),其他危及器官剂量无明显差异.机器总跳数FFF VMAT为(699±16) MU,FFVMAT为(628±12)MU.平均单次治疗时间均约2 min,两者无明显差别.结论 两种计划均能满足临床治疗需求,FFF VMAT计划更利于保护照射野边缘危及器官,如晶状体.机器总跳数FFFVMAT计划高于FF VMAT计划但两者平均单次治疗时间无明显差别.
目的 比較加速器6MVX射線非均整模式(FFF)和均整模式(FF)下跼部進展期鼻嚥癌容積調彊(VMAT)計劃的劑量學差異.方法 選取10例已行放療的跼部進展期鼻嚥癌患者,分彆設計FFF和FF VMAT計劃,在滿足臨床要求的情況下,比較兩種計劃的劑量體積直方圖(DVH)、靶區劑量分佈、危及器官受量、靶區適形度、總機器跳數和治療時間.結果 兩者均能滿足臨床治療需求,FFF VMAT計劃靶區最大劑量和平均劑量大于FF VMAT計劃(t=-0.31、-0.35,P ＜0.05),而計劃靶區適形度略低(t=5.42,P＜0.05),左右晶狀體的最大劑量低于FF VMAT計劃(t=25.87、17.45,P＜0.05),其他危及器官劑量無明顯差異.機器總跳數FFF VMAT為(699±16) MU,FFVMAT為(628±12)MU.平均單次治療時間均約2 min,兩者無明顯差彆.結論 兩種計劃均能滿足臨床治療需求,FFF VMAT計劃更利于保護照射野邊緣危及器官,如晶狀體.機器總跳數FFFVMAT計劃高于FF VMAT計劃但兩者平均單次治療時間無明顯差彆.
목적 비교가속기6MVX사선비균정모식(FFF)화균정모식(FF)하국부진전기비인암용적조강(VMAT)계화적제량학차이.방법 선취10례이행방료적국부진전기비인암환자,분별설계FFF화FF VMAT계화,재만족림상요구적정황하,비교량충계화적제량체적직방도(DVH)、파구제량분포、위급기관수량、파구괄형도、총궤기도수화치료시간.결과 량자균능만족림상치료수구,FFF VMAT계화파구최대제량화평균제량대우FF VMAT계화(t=-0.31、-0.35,P ＜0.05),이계화파구괄형도략저(t=5.42,P＜0.05),좌우정상체적최대제량저우FF VMAT계화(t=25.87、17.45,P＜0.05),기타위급기관제량무명현차이.궤기총도수FFF VMAT위(699±16) MU,FFVMAT위(628±12)MU.평균단차치료시간균약2 min,량자무명현차별.결론 량충계화균능만족림상치료수구,FFF VMAT계화경리우보호조사야변연위급기관,여정상체.궤기총도수FFFVMAT계화고우FF VMAT계화단량자평균단차치료시간무명현차별.
Objective To compare the dosimetric difference of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for the loco-regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients using 6 MV X-ray flattening filter-free (FFF) and flattening filter (FF) modes.Methods Ten previously treated patients with loco-regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were retrospectively included and replanned using FFF and FF VMAT,respectively.Meeting all clinical criteria,the dose-volume histograms (DVH),dose distribution of target volume and organs at risk (OARs),target conformity index (CI),total monitor unites (MUs) and treatment time were compared across the plans.Results VMAT plans suing either FFF and FF modes can meet the clinical objectives.The maximum and mean target dose of FFF VMAT plans were significantly higher than that of FF VMAT plans (t =-0.31,-O.35,P ＜ O.05).Yet the planning target volume (PTV) CI of FF mode was slightly better than of FFF mode (t =5.42,P ＜0.05).The maximum doses of lenses in FFF VMAT plans were lower than that of FF VMAT plans (t =25.87,17.45,P ＜ 0.05),and other OARs displayed no significant difference.The mean total MUs of FFF and FF VMAT plans were (699 ± 16) and (628 ± 12) MUs respectively.The mean treatment time of two modes were consistent (about 2 min).Conclusions The plan qualities of FFF and FF VMAT plans were comparable and both clinically acceptable.The OARs at the edge of radiation field,such as lens,could be spared better using FFF VMAT mode.The total MUs of FFF VMAT plans were higher than FF VMAT plans,yet were delivered within the same time.
