Anticancer research · 2023
Dosimetric Comparison of Helical Tomotherapy and HyperArc Treatment Plans for Angiosarcoma of the Scalp.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Inui Shoki, Takahashi Yutaka, Ueda Yoshihiro, Ohira Shingo, Washio Hayate, Ono Shunsuke, Miyazaki Masayoshi, Nishio Teiji, Koizumi Masahiko, Konishi Koji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Angiosarcoma of the scalp (AS) is a rare tumor that has often been treated by total scalp irradiation (TSI). TSI has technical and dosimetric challenges. This study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of helical tomotherapy (HT) plans with that of HyperArc (HA) plans for TSI in AS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A planning study was conducted for 11 patients with AS (70 Gy/35 fr). HT and HA planning was performed using TomoHDA and TrueBeam Edge systems, respectively. The performance of three different plans were compared: HT, HA, and HA with half-field beams (HF-HA). The dose distribution and dosimetric parameters for each plan were evaluated.
RESULTS: All constraint parameters for the target and organs at risk (OARs) met the goals within acceptable limits for the three techniques. The HA and HF-HA plans provided significantly lower mean brain dose (12.46±2.48 Gy and 8.02±1.48 Gy) than did the HT plan (17.59±3.47 Gy). The doses receiving 0.1 cc of the volume for brainstem and chiasm were significantly lower in the HA and HF-HA plans than those in the HT plan. The HA and HF-HA plans provided a shorter beam-on time (155±3 s and 181±14 s) than did the HT plan (962±221 s).
CONCLUSION: The HA plan provided significantly better OARs sparing than the HT plan for TSI in AS and had an advantage to using half-field beams.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A planning study was conducted for 11 patients with AS (70 Gy/35 fr). HT and HA planning was performed using TomoHDA and TrueBeam Edge systems, respectively. The performance of three different plans were compared: HT, HA, and HA with half-field beams (HF-HA). The dose distribution and dosimetric parameters for each plan were evaluated.
RESULTS: All constraint parameters for the target and organs at risk (OARs) met the goals within acceptable limits for the three techniques. The HA and HF-HA plans provided significantly lower mean brain dose (12.46±2.48 Gy and 8.02±1.48 Gy) than did the HT plan (17.59±3.47 Gy). The doses receiving 0.1 cc of the volume for brainstem and chiasm were significantly lower in the HA and HF-HA plans than those in the HT plan. The HA and HF-HA plans provided a shorter beam-on time (155±3 s and 181±14 s) than did the HT plan (962±221 s).
CONCLUSION: The HA plan provided significantly better OARs sparing than the HT plan for TSI in AS and had an advantage to using half-field beams.