International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2010
Volumetric modulation arc radiotherapy compared with static gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma tumor: a feasibility study.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Scorsetti Marta, Bignardi Mario, Clivio Alessandro, Cozzi Luca, Fogliata Antonella, Lattuada Paola, Mancosu Pietro, Navarria Piera, Nicolini Giorgia, Urso Gaetano, Vanetti Eugenio, Vigorito Sabrina, Santoro Armando
Аннотация
PURPOSE: A planning study was performed to evaluate RapidArc (RA), a volumetric modulated arc technique, on malignant pleural mesothelioma. The benchmark was conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The computed tomography data sets of 6 patients were included. The plans for IMRT with nine fixed beams were compared against double-modulated arcs with a single isocenter. All plans were optimized for 15-MV photon beams. The dose prescription was 54 Gy to the planning target volume. The planning objectives for the planning target volume were a minimal dose of >95% and maximal dose of <107%. For the organs at risk, the parameters were as follows: contralateral lung, percentage of volume receiving 5 Gy (V(5 Gy)) <60%, V(20 Gy) < 10%, mean <10.0 Gy; liver, V(30 Gy) <33%, mean <31 Gy; heart, V(45 Gy) <30%, V(50 Gy) <20%, dose received by 1% of the volume (D(1%)) <60 Gy; contralateral kidney, V(15 Gy) <20%; spine, D(1%) <45 Gy; esophagus, V(55 Gy) <30%; and spleen, V(40 Gy) <50%. The monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were scored to measure the treatment efficiency. The pretreatment portal dosimetry scored delivery to the calculation agreement with the Gamma Agreement Index.
RESULTS: RA and IMRT provided equivalent coverage and homogeneity. Both techniques fulfilled objectives on organs at risk with a tendency of RA to improve sparing. The conformity index was 1.9 +/- 0.1 for RA and IMRT. The number of MU/2 Gy was 734 +/- 82 for RA and 2,195 +/- 317 for IMRT. The planning vs. delivery agreement revealed a Gamma Agreement Index for IMRT of 96.0% +/- 2.6% and for RA of 95.7% +/- 1.5%. The treatment time was 3.7 +/- 0.3 min for RA and 13.4 +/- 0.1 min for IMRT.
CONCLUSION: RA demonstrated compared with conventional IMRT, similar target coverage and better dose sparing to the organs at risks. The number of MUs and the time required to deliver a 2-Gy fraction were much lower for RA, allowing the possibility to incorporate this technique in the treatment options for mesothelioma patients.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The computed tomography data sets of 6 patients were included. The plans for IMRT with nine fixed beams were compared against double-modulated arcs with a single isocenter. All plans were optimized for 15-MV photon beams. The dose prescription was 54 Gy to the planning target volume. The planning objectives for the planning target volume were a minimal dose of >95% and maximal dose of <107%. For the organs at risk, the parameters were as follows: contralateral lung, percentage of volume receiving 5 Gy (V(5 Gy)) <60%, V(20 Gy) < 10%, mean <10.0 Gy; liver, V(30 Gy) <33%, mean <31 Gy; heart, V(45 Gy) <30%, V(50 Gy) <20%, dose received by 1% of the volume (D(1%)) <60 Gy; contralateral kidney, V(15 Gy) <20%; spine, D(1%) <45 Gy; esophagus, V(55 Gy) <30%; and spleen, V(40 Gy) <50%. The monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were scored to measure the treatment efficiency. The pretreatment portal dosimetry scored delivery to the calculation agreement with the Gamma Agreement Index.
RESULTS: RA and IMRT provided equivalent coverage and homogeneity. Both techniques fulfilled objectives on organs at risk with a tendency of RA to improve sparing. The conformity index was 1.9 +/- 0.1 for RA and IMRT. The number of MU/2 Gy was 734 +/- 82 for RA and 2,195 +/- 317 for IMRT. The planning vs. delivery agreement revealed a Gamma Agreement Index for IMRT of 96.0% +/- 2.6% and for RA of 95.7% +/- 1.5%. The treatment time was 3.7 +/- 0.3 min for RA and 13.4 +/- 0.1 min for IMRT.
CONCLUSION: RA demonstrated compared with conventional IMRT, similar target coverage and better dose sparing to the organs at risks. The number of MUs and the time required to deliver a 2-Gy fraction were much lower for RA, allowing the possibility to incorporate this technique in the treatment options for mesothelioma patients.