Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
Dynamic conformal arc radiotherapy for locally advanced lung cancer: a comparison with static-beam conformal radiotherapy.
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.
Goto Masaki, Sanuki Naoko, Kasae Masaru, Terabayashi Ryo, Nishiwaki Yurika, Ogita Yuya, Tone Junya, Seta Hidetoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether the dose distribution of lung cancer can be improved by dynamic arc conformal radiotherapy (dynamic CRT) compared with static multiple-beam radiotherapy (static CRT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dummy study of static CRT and dynamic CRT was performed, designed to meet the predetermined dose constraints. A dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions was administered using two dose prescription methods: dose prescribed to the isocenter (IC prescription), and dose prescribed to > 50% of the planning target volume (D50 prescription). Dose-volume parameters were compared between the plans.
RESULTS: Among 20 patients with locally advanced lung cancer, dose conformity was significantly better with dynamic CRT than static CRT (median conformity index: 1.3 vs. 2.2; p < 0.01). As for the lung dose, compared with static CRT, dynamic CRT did not increase the percentage lung volume receiving ≥ 20 Gy (18.9% vs. 19.3%, p = 0.09). The maximum spinal cord dose was significantly reduced by dynamic CRT (static vs. dynamic CRT: 44.1 vs. 25.2 Gy, p < 0.001). With the change from IC to D50 prescription, the 95% isodose volume increased by 18.3 cc in static CRT and by 4.1 cc in dynamic CRT, while doses to the lung and spinal cord remained within the acceptable ranges.
CONCLUSION: The dynamic CRT technique showed better target coverage and lower doses to the spinal cord in exchange for increased low-dose lung area, compared with static CRT. Dynamic CRT with D50 prescription instead of prescription to the isocenter has excellent dose distribution profiles without compromising doses to organs at risk for lung cancer at favorable locations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dummy study of static CRT and dynamic CRT was performed, designed to meet the predetermined dose constraints. A dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions was administered using two dose prescription methods: dose prescribed to the isocenter (IC prescription), and dose prescribed to > 50% of the planning target volume (D50 prescription). Dose-volume parameters were compared between the plans.
RESULTS: Among 20 patients with locally advanced lung cancer, dose conformity was significantly better with dynamic CRT than static CRT (median conformity index: 1.3 vs. 2.2; p < 0.01). As for the lung dose, compared with static CRT, dynamic CRT did not increase the percentage lung volume receiving ≥ 20 Gy (18.9% vs. 19.3%, p = 0.09). The maximum spinal cord dose was significantly reduced by dynamic CRT (static vs. dynamic CRT: 44.1 vs. 25.2 Gy, p < 0.001). With the change from IC to D50 prescription, the 95% isodose volume increased by 18.3 cc in static CRT and by 4.1 cc in dynamic CRT, while doses to the lung and spinal cord remained within the acceptable ranges.
CONCLUSION: The dynamic CRT technique showed better target coverage and lower doses to the spinal cord in exchange for increased low-dose lung area, compared with static CRT. Dynamic CRT with D50 prescription instead of prescription to the isocenter has excellent dose distribution profiles without compromising doses to organs at risk for lung cancer at favorable locations.