Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022
Treatment plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy to intensity-modulated radiotherapy in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy using either 6- or 10-MV photon energies.
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.
Wei Zhigong, Peng Xingchen, He Ling, Wang Jingjing, Liu Zheran, Xiao Jianghong
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques using either 6- or 10-MV photon beam energies in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plans.
METHODS: Thirty patients with primary or metastatic lung tumors eligible for SBRT were randomly selected. VMAT and IMRT treatment plans using either 6- or 10-MV photon energies were generated through automatic SBRT planning software in the RayStation treatment planning system.
RESULTS: For planning target volume, there was no difference in D95% for all plans, whereas D2% and D50% were significantly increased by 5.22%-5.98% and 2.47%-2.59%, respectively, using VMAT6/10-MV plans compared to IMRT6/10-MV plans. When comparing the Dmax of organs at risk (OARs), VMAT6/10-MV was 18.32%-47.95% lower than IMRT6/10-MV for almost all OARs. VMAT6/10-MV obviously decreased Dmean , V5Gy , V10Gy , and V20Gy of whole lung by 9.68%-20.92% than IMRT6/10-MV . Similar results were found when comparing VMAT6-MV with IMRT10-MV or VMAT10-MV with IMRT6-MV . The differences in the D2% , heterogeneity index, and conformity index between 6- and 10-MV plans are not statistically significant. Plans using 6-MV performed 4.68%-8.91% lower levels of Dmax of spinal cord, esophagus, great vessels, and trachea and proximal bronchial tree than those using 10-MV plans. Similarly, Dmean , V5Gy , V10Gy , and V20Gy of whole lung were also reduced by 2.79%-5.25% using 6-MV. For dose fall-off analysis, the D2cm and R50% of VMAT6/10-MV were lower than those of IMRT6/10-MV . Dose fall-off curve based on 10 rings was steeper for VMAT plans than IMRT plans regardless of the energy used.
CONCLUSIONS: For lung SBRT plans, VMAT-based plans significantly reduced OARs dose and steepened dose fall-off curves compared to IMRT-based plans. A 6-MV energy level was a better choice than 10-MV for lung SBRT. In addition, the dose differences between different techniques were more obvious than those between different energy levels.
METHODS: Thirty patients with primary or metastatic lung tumors eligible for SBRT were randomly selected. VMAT and IMRT treatment plans using either 6- or 10-MV photon energies were generated through automatic SBRT planning software in the RayStation treatment planning system.
RESULTS: For planning target volume, there was no difference in D95% for all plans, whereas D2% and D50% were significantly increased by 5.22%-5.98% and 2.47%-2.59%, respectively, using VMAT6/10-MV plans compared to IMRT6/10-MV plans. When comparing the Dmax of organs at risk (OARs), VMAT6/10-MV was 18.32%-47.95% lower than IMRT6/10-MV for almost all OARs. VMAT6/10-MV obviously decreased Dmean , V5Gy , V10Gy , and V20Gy of whole lung by 9.68%-20.92% than IMRT6/10-MV . Similar results were found when comparing VMAT6-MV with IMRT10-MV or VMAT10-MV with IMRT6-MV . The differences in the D2% , heterogeneity index, and conformity index between 6- and 10-MV plans are not statistically significant. Plans using 6-MV performed 4.68%-8.91% lower levels of Dmax of spinal cord, esophagus, great vessels, and trachea and proximal bronchial tree than those using 10-MV plans. Similarly, Dmean , V5Gy , V10Gy , and V20Gy of whole lung were also reduced by 2.79%-5.25% using 6-MV. For dose fall-off analysis, the D2cm and R50% of VMAT6/10-MV were lower than those of IMRT6/10-MV . Dose fall-off curve based on 10 rings was steeper for VMAT plans than IMRT plans regardless of the energy used.
CONCLUSIONS: For lung SBRT plans, VMAT-based plans significantly reduced OARs dose and steepened dose fall-off curves compared to IMRT-based plans. A 6-MV energy level was a better choice than 10-MV for lung SBRT. In addition, the dose differences between different techniques were more obvious than those between different energy levels.