关键词: 3D-CRT technique 3D-CRT, 3D conformal radiation therapy CI, Conformity index Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation EUD, Equivalent uniform dose Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD) HI, Homogeneity index JO-IMRT technique JO-IMRT, Jaws-only Intensity-modulated radiotherapy NTCP, Normal tissue complication probability PTV, Planning target volume Plan evaluation TCP, Tumor control probability

来  源:   DOI:10.1016/j.sjbs.2022.103336   PDF(Pubmed)

Abstract:
UNASSIGNED: Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluations for the Jaws-only Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (JO-IMRT) technique for head and neck jaws-only intensity-modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) and 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). To compare the head-and-neck therapeutic approaches utilizing JO-IMRT and 3D-CRT techniques, different radiation dose indices were calculated, including: conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and radiobiological variables like Niemierko\'s equivalent uniform dose based tumor control probability (TCP) of planning target volume (PTV), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk (OAR) (brainstem, spinal cord, and parotid grand).
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.
摘要:
用于仅头颈颌骨强度调节放射治疗(JO-IMRT)和3D适形放射治疗(3D-CRT)的仅颌骨强度调节放射治疗(JO-IMRT)技术的剂量学和放射生物学评估。为了比较利用JO-IMRT和3D-CRT技术的头颈部治疗方法,计算了不同的辐射剂量指数,包括:符合性指数(CI)、同质性指数(HI),和放射生物学变量,例如Niemierko的基于等效均匀剂量的肿瘤控制概率(TCP)的计划目标体积(PTV),危险器官(OAR)的正常组织并发症概率(NTCP)(脑干,脊髓,和腮腺盛大)。
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。
公众号