UNASSIGNED: Twenty-five nasopharynx patients were studied using the Prowess Panther Treatment Planning System (Prowess Inc). The results were compared with the dose distribution obtained using 3D-CRT.
UNASSIGNED: Regarding tumor coverage and CI, JO-IMRT showed better results than 3D-CRT. The average doses received by the PTVs were quite similar: 72.1 ± 0.8 Gy by 3D-CRT and 72.5 ± 0.6 Gy by JO-IMRT plans (p > 0.05). The mean doses received by the parotid gland were 56.7 ± 0.7 Gy by 3D-CRT and 26.8 ± 0.3 Gy by JO-IMRT (p > 0.05). The HI and CI were 0.13 ± 0.01 and 0.14 ± 0.05 and (p > 0.05) by 3D-CRT and 0.83 ± 0.05 and 0.73 ± 0.10 by JO-IMRT (p < 0.05). The average TCP of PTV was 0.82 ± 0.08 by 3D-CRT and 0.92 ± 0.02 by JO-IMRT. Moreover, the NTCP of the parotid glands, brain stem, and spinal cord were lower using the JO-IMRT than 3D-CRT plans. In comparison to the 3D-CRT approach, the JO-IMRT technique was able to boost dose coverage to the PTV, improve the target\'s CI and HI, and spare the parotid glands. This suggests the power of the JO-IMRT over 3D-CRT in head-and-neck radiotherapy.
■使用ProwessPanther治疗计划系统(ProwessInc)研究了25例鼻咽患者。将结果与使用3D-CRT获得的剂量分布进行比较。
■关于肿瘤覆盖率和CI,JO-IMRT显示出比3D-CRT更好的结果。PTV接受的平均剂量非常相似:3D-CRT为72.1±0.8Gy,JO-IMRT计划为72.5±0.6Gy(p>0.05)。腮腺接受3D-CRT的平均剂量为56.7±0.7Gy,JO-IMRT的平均剂量为26.8±0.3Gy(p>0.05)。3D-CRT的HI和CI分别为0.13±0.01和0.14±0.05和(p>0.05),JO-IMRT的HI和CI分别为0.83±0.05和0.73±0.10(p<0.05)。3D-CRT的PTV平均TCP为0.82±0.08,JO-IMRT为0.92±0.02。此外,腮腺的NTCP,脑干,使用JO-IMRT的脊髓低于3D-CRT计划。与3D-CRT方法相比,JO-IMRT技术能够提高PTV的剂量覆盖率,改善目标\'sCI和HI,保留腮腺.这表明JO-IMRT相对于3D-CRT在头颈部放射治疗中的功能。