Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2010
Comparison of helical and average computed tomography for stereotactic body radiation treatment planning and normal tissue contouring in lung cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Han K, Basran P S, Cheung P
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare average computed tomography (CT(AVE)) datasets with free breathing helical computed tomography (CT(HEL)) for contouring organs at risk (OARs) and radiation treatment planning in patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the lung.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten SBRT patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer underwent a CT(HEL) and a four-dimensional computed tomography scan in the treatment position. CT(AVE) datasets were generated from the four-dimensional computed tomography scan. The following OARs were delineated on the CT(HEL) and CT(AVE) datasets of each patient: lung minus internal target volume, trachea/main bronchus, heart, oesophagus and spinal cord. Volumes and geometric centres of the OARs, as well as the dosimetric impact of planning with these different datasets, were examined.
RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in the OAR geometric centre coordinates nor in the OAR volumes between the CT(HEL) and CT(AVE) datasets, except that CT(AVE)-defined trachea/main bronchus and lung minus internal target volume mean volumes were larger than those defined on the CT(HEL) (46, 43 cm³ and 3516, 3378 cm³, respectively, P<0.05). Despite this, there were no significant differences in the mean and maximum doses to the OAR contours when using the CT(HEL) or CT(AVE) for planning (<4% average change in the maximum and mean doses for all OARs, P>0.05). There were also no significant differences in the locations of the hotspots within OARs among the CT(HEL) or CT(AVE) datasets (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: CT(AVE) datasets may be used in place of CT(HEL) for OAR contouring and dose calculations. When four-dimensional computed tomography is available, it may not be necessary to acquire a separate CT(HEL) scan for OAR contouring or dosimetric purposes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten SBRT patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer underwent a CT(HEL) and a four-dimensional computed tomography scan in the treatment position. CT(AVE) datasets were generated from the four-dimensional computed tomography scan. The following OARs were delineated on the CT(HEL) and CT(AVE) datasets of each patient: lung minus internal target volume, trachea/main bronchus, heart, oesophagus and spinal cord. Volumes and geometric centres of the OARs, as well as the dosimetric impact of planning with these different datasets, were examined.
RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in the OAR geometric centre coordinates nor in the OAR volumes between the CT(HEL) and CT(AVE) datasets, except that CT(AVE)-defined trachea/main bronchus and lung minus internal target volume mean volumes were larger than those defined on the CT(HEL) (46, 43 cm³ and 3516, 3378 cm³, respectively, P<0.05). Despite this, there were no significant differences in the mean and maximum doses to the OAR contours when using the CT(HEL) or CT(AVE) for planning (<4% average change in the maximum and mean doses for all OARs, P>0.05). There were also no significant differences in the locations of the hotspots within OARs among the CT(HEL) or CT(AVE) datasets (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: CT(AVE) datasets may be used in place of CT(HEL) for OAR contouring and dose calculations. When four-dimensional computed tomography is available, it may not be necessary to acquire a separate CT(HEL) scan for OAR contouring or dosimetric purposes.