Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
Evaluation of Dynamic Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) versus Fixed MLC for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Using the Agility 160-Leaf Collimator.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fodil Nabila Es, Abdelhakem Mohamed M, Yahia Gamal A, Ammar Hani
Аннотация
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of static or step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT) and dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) delivery techniques for various treatment sites.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment planning system (TPS) was utilized to develop optimal treatment plans for twenty-seven patients selected for this comparative study, including nine with head and neck cancer, nine with prostate cancer, and nine with cervical cancer. The prescribed doses were 7000cGy/33fr, 7425cGy/33fr, and 5000cGy/25fr for the nasopharynx, prostate, and cervix cases, respectively, in both ssIMRT and dIMRT delivery techniques. Plans were generated using the Monaco treatment planning system with a 6MV photon beam and nine equidistant fields. Plan evaluation criteria included dose-volume histogram analysis, dose homogeneity index, conformity index, radiation delivery time, and monitor unit requirements.
RESULTS: All plans were optimized to ensure that 98% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 95% of the prescribed dose, while meeting the planning objectives for organs at risk. dIMRT plans exhibited superior conformity (CI = 0.85 ± 0.05) compared to ssIMRT plans (CI = 0.79 ± 0.08), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01). Inhomogeneity within the PTV was significantly higher in ssIMRT plans (HI = 0.10 ± 0.02) compared to dIMRT plans (HI = 0.09 ± 0.01), with a significant difference (P < 0.01). Delivery time per fraction was significantly lower in dIMRT compared to ssIMRT (P < 0.01). Furthermore, dIMRT plans required a higher mean monitor unit value (1335.4 ± 172.2) compared to ssIMRT plans (974.4 ± 133.6) with a significant difference (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that dIMRT provides improved target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity while reducing treatment delivery time compared to ssIMRT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment planning system (TPS) was utilized to develop optimal treatment plans for twenty-seven patients selected for this comparative study, including nine with head and neck cancer, nine with prostate cancer, and nine with cervical cancer. The prescribed doses were 7000cGy/33fr, 7425cGy/33fr, and 5000cGy/25fr for the nasopharynx, prostate, and cervix cases, respectively, in both ssIMRT and dIMRT delivery techniques. Plans were generated using the Monaco treatment planning system with a 6MV photon beam and nine equidistant fields. Plan evaluation criteria included dose-volume histogram analysis, dose homogeneity index, conformity index, radiation delivery time, and monitor unit requirements.
RESULTS: All plans were optimized to ensure that 98% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 95% of the prescribed dose, while meeting the planning objectives for organs at risk. dIMRT plans exhibited superior conformity (CI = 0.85 ± 0.05) compared to ssIMRT plans (CI = 0.79 ± 0.08), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01). Inhomogeneity within the PTV was significantly higher in ssIMRT plans (HI = 0.10 ± 0.02) compared to dIMRT plans (HI = 0.09 ± 0.01), with a significant difference (P < 0.01). Delivery time per fraction was significantly lower in dIMRT compared to ssIMRT (P < 0.01). Furthermore, dIMRT plans required a higher mean monitor unit value (1335.4 ± 172.2) compared to ssIMRT plans (974.4 ± 133.6) with a significant difference (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that dIMRT provides improved target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity while reducing treatment delivery time compared to ssIMRT.