CAJ | 학술논문

对Varian EPID和PTW Detector 729在容积旋转调强剂量验证中的结果进行比较,分析两种方法的通过率是否存在差异.选取30例不同部位的RapidArc计划分别生成两种验证计划,一种为瓦里安RapidArc系统自带的EPID验证计划,另一种为PTW电离室矩阵的验证计划,以3 mm和3%标准进行?通过率分析.两种方法7组验证结果的?通过率(靶区内、有效探测面积内及靶区外扩5 mm、10 mm、20 mm、30 mm、50mm)行单因素F检验分析.结果发现靶区外扩30 mm区域内的γ通过率无统计学差异(F=0.395,p>0.05),其余6组结果均有统计学差异(p<0.05).两种剂量验证方式各有利弊,对其结论进行比较分析可更全面保障调强放疗计划验证的准确性.
대Varian EPID화PTW Detector 729재용적선전조강제량험증중적결과진행비교,분석량충방법적통과솔시부존재차이.선취30례불동부위적RapidArc계화분별생성량충험증계화,일충위와리안RapidArc계통자대적EPID험증계화,령일충위PTW전리실구진적험증계화,이3 mm화3%표준진행?통과솔분석.량충방법7조험증결과적?통과솔(파구내、유효탐측면적내급파구외확5 mm、10 mm、20 mm、30 mm、50mm)행단인소F검험분석.결과발현파구외확30 mm구역내적γ통과솔무통계학차이(F=0.395,p>0.05),기여6조결과균유통계학차이(p<0.05).량충제량험증방식각유리폐,대기결론진행비교분석가경전면보장조강방료계화험증적준학성.
The data of dose verification between Varian EPID and PTW Detector 729 is compared to discuss whether the statistics difference of gamma passing rates between the two methods exists. The RapidArc plans for different body sites of 30 patients undergoing radiation treatment with RapidArc technique were used for the generation of the two verification plans, with one for using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) of Varian RapidArc systems (Varian medical systems), and the other for using the chamber array detector from PTW(PTW Detector 729). Seven comparative experiments were performed for each pair of the plans, which were measurements inside the target, inside the effective detection area, and the target with expansions of 5 mm,10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, and 50 mm, respectively. The gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm andF-test were used in the quantitative analysis. No statistical difference between the two methods was found for the measurement of the area of target with 30 mm expansion (F=0.395,p>0.05), while statistical difference existed (p<0.05) for all the other measurements. The comparative analysis showed that both verification methods have advantages and disadvantages and the countercheck of each other will provide value for comprehensive verification of intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) plans.