Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
A density assignment method for dose monitoring in head-and-neck radiotherapy.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяНазвание 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.
Barateau A, Perichon N, Castelli J, Schick U, Henry O, Chajon E, Simon A, Lafond C, De Crevoisier R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During head-and-neck (H&N) radiotherapy, the parotid glands (PGs) may be overdosed; thus, a tool is required to monitor the delivered dose. This study aimed to assess the dose accuracy of a patient-specific density assignment method (DAM) for dose calculation to monitor the dose to PGs during treatment.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients with H&N cancer received an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), among whom 15 had weekly CTs. Dose distributions were calculated either on the CTs (CTref), on one-class CTs (1C-CT, water), or on three-class CTs (3C-CT, water-air-bone). The inter- and intra-patient DAM uncertainties were evaluated by the difference between doses calculated on CTref and 1C-CTs or 3C-CTs. PG mean dose (Dmean) and spinal cord maximum dose (D2%) were considered. The cumulated dose to the PGs was estimated by the mean Dmean of the weekly CTs.
RESULTS: The mean (maximum) inter-patient DAM dose uncertainties for the PGs (in cGy) were 23 (75) using 1C-CTs and 12 (50) using 3C-CTs (p ≤ 0.001). For the spinal cord, these uncertainties were 118 (245) and 15 (67; p ≤ 0.001). The mean (maximum) DAM dose uncertainty between cumulated doses calculated on CTs and 3C-CTs was 7 cGy (45 cGy) for the PGs. Considering the difference between the planned and cumulated doses, 53% of the ipsilateral and 80% of the contralateral PGs were overdosed by +3.6 Gy (up to 8.2 Gy) and +1.9 Gy (up to 5.2 Gy), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The uncertainty of the three-class DAM appears to be clinically non-significant (<0.5 Gy) compared with the PG overdose (up to 8.2 Gy). This DAM could therefore be used to monitor PG doses and trigger replanning.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients with H&N cancer received an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), among whom 15 had weekly CTs. Dose distributions were calculated either on the CTs (CTref), on one-class CTs (1C-CT, water), or on three-class CTs (3C-CT, water-air-bone). The inter- and intra-patient DAM uncertainties were evaluated by the difference between doses calculated on CTref and 1C-CTs or 3C-CTs. PG mean dose (Dmean) and spinal cord maximum dose (D2%) were considered. The cumulated dose to the PGs was estimated by the mean Dmean of the weekly CTs.
RESULTS: The mean (maximum) inter-patient DAM dose uncertainties for the PGs (in cGy) were 23 (75) using 1C-CTs and 12 (50) using 3C-CTs (p ≤ 0.001). For the spinal cord, these uncertainties were 118 (245) and 15 (67; p ≤ 0.001). The mean (maximum) DAM dose uncertainty between cumulated doses calculated on CTs and 3C-CTs was 7 cGy (45 cGy) for the PGs. Considering the difference between the planned and cumulated doses, 53% of the ipsilateral and 80% of the contralateral PGs were overdosed by +3.6 Gy (up to 8.2 Gy) and +1.9 Gy (up to 5.2 Gy), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The uncertainty of the three-class DAM appears to be clinically non-significant (<0.5 Gy) compared with the PG overdose (up to 8.2 Gy). This DAM could therefore be used to monitor PG doses and trigger replanning.