Dosimetric analysis for the number of IMRT beams to pelvic bone for postoperative pelvic tumors
-
摘要:
目的 探讨在调强放射治疗技术(IMRT)中将盆骨作为危机器官进行计划设计的剂量学优势,研究不同射野数量对盆骨保护的IMRT的剂量学影响。 方法 18例宫颈癌术后患者均进行CT扫描并勾画靶区。采用6MV X线,多野共面照射,每个患者设计4个IMRT计划,两个7野计划IMRT7f和BMS-IMRT7f,1个5野BMS-IMRT5f计划和9野BMS-IMRT9f计划。IMRT7f为未对盆骨限量的7野调强计划,BMS-IMRT5f、BMS-IMRT7f和BMS-IMRT9f分别是将盆骨视为危机器官的5野、7野、9野调强计划。IMRT7f和BMS-IMRT7f比较,旨在分析对盆骨限量的计划对PTV适形性、均匀性和其他危机器官的剂量分布的影响。BMS-IMRT5f、BMS-IMRT7f和BMS-IMRT9f相互比较,研究不同射野数量对盆骨保护的剂量差异。 结果 BMS-IMRT7f与IMRT7f相比,等剂量线在盆骨处分布更加紧凑。BMS-IMRT7f与IMRT7f在PTV适形性和均匀性上差异无统计意义(P>0.05),但是BMS-IMRT7f在盆骨保护上明显优于IMRT7f(P<0.05)。BMS-IMRT9f和BMS-IMRT7f计划靶区的均匀性和适形性明显优于BMS-IMRT5f(P<0.05);在盆骨和小肠保护方面,BMS-IMRT5f和BMS-IMRT7f差异无统计意义(P>0.05);BMS-IMRT9f在低剂量区照射面积最大,而在高剂量区照射面积最小。在直肠保护方面,BMS-IMRT7f对直肠的照射面积最小。BMS-IMRT9f对膀胱的保护最好,BMS-IMRT7f次之。从跳数MU上分析,BMS-IMRT5f跳数最少,BMS-IMRT9f跳数最多。 结论 BMS-IMRT7f在不牺牲计划靶区的适形性和均匀性的基础上,较好的保护了盆骨,但略微增大直肠、小肠和膀胱的高剂量区。BMS-IMRT7f在PTV适形性、均匀性和危机器官保护上,优于BMS-IMRT5f,略差于BMS-IMRT9f。BMS-IMRT9f跳数较多,治疗时间较长。从剂量和实际执行效率来说,BMS-IMRT7f更适合临床应用。 Abstract:Objective To investigate the dosimetric advantages of IMRT plans which regard pelvic bone as an organ at risk, and explore the dosimetric effect of the beam number on pelvic bone during cervical IMRT plans. Methods The target areas of 18 cases of cervical cancer patients were depicted after CT scans. 6Mv X-ray and multi-field coplanar plan were performed. Four coplanar plans were performed on every case, including IMRT7f、BMS-IMRT5f、BMS-IMRT7f and BMS-IMRT9f. The pelvic bones were not considered as organ at risk in IMRT7f.While, they were regarded as organ at risk in BMS-IMRT5f、BMS-IMRT7f and BMS-IMRT9f. The comparison between IMRT7f and BMS-IMRT7f was used to analyze the effect of different treatment plans in conformability and homogeneity of PTV and dose distribution in organs at risk. The comparisons of BMS-IMRT5f, BMS-IMRT7f and BMS-IMRT9f were used to investigate the dosimetric difference of the beam number on cervical IMRT plans. Results Compared with IMRT7f, BMS-IMRT7f had more compact isodose lines in the pelvic bone region. The difference between BMS-IMRT7f and IMRT7f in conformability and homogeneity of PTV was not significant. BMS-IMRT7f was better than IMRT7f in pelvic bone protection with significant difference. Both of BMS-IMRT9f and BMS-IMRT7f had better coverage and homogeneity of PTV than BMS-IMRT5f. The difference between BMS-IMRT5f and BMS-IMRT7f in pelvis and intestinal protection was not significant. BMS-IMRT9f had a large filed in lower dose area, while it had a small field in higher dose area. In terms of rectal protection, BMS-IMRT7f had a minimum filed size on rectum. BMS-IMRT9f was best protected against the bladder, followed by BMS-IMRT7f. The number of BMS-IMRT5f hops was the least, and the number of BMS-IMRT9f hops was the largest. Conclusion BMS-IMRT7f protects the pelvis.It increases the high dose of the rectum, small intestine and bladder without sacrificing the conformability and uniformity of PTV. BMS-IMRT7f is superior to BMS-IMRT5f in PTV conformance, homogeneity and organ protection. BMS-IMRT9f hops more with longer treatment time. BMS-IMRT7f is more suitable for clinical use in terms of dose and actual implementation efficiency. -
Key words:
- cervical cancer /
- intensive planning /
- field number /
- dose /
- pelvic protection
-
表 1 IMRT7f和BMS-IMRT7f剂量学比较
分类 IMRT7 BMS-IMRT7 P 中位数 最小值-最大值 中位数 最小值-最大值 HI 0.079 0.068-0.112 0.085 0.076-0.124 0.001 CI 0.859 0.8045-0.8596 0.85 0.81-0.87 0.004 Bone V5 99.76 97.88-100 98.65 95.15-100 0.000 V10 93.09 90.06-99.2 91.85 89.2-99.29 0.000 V20 85.86 81.02-91.8 73.95 68.37-75.84 0.000 V30 59.25 54.07-84.79 49.5 43.61-55.66 0.000 V40 31.81 19.76-40.07 29.64 19.05-35.92 0.001 V45 21.96 12.58-28.84 20.59 11.75-26.26 0.001 D2% 5227 5150-5295.5 5234.5 5140-5327 0.286 Dmean 3287.25 3006.1-3498 3057.3 2198.6-3241.1 0.000 Rectum V5 100 100-100 100 100-100 1.000 V10 100 100-100 100 100-100 1.000 V20 100 94.28-100 100 97.71-100 0.310 V30 90.43 45.91-100 90.43 45.91-100 0.140 V40 39.48 23.05-49.9 39.48 23.05-49.90 0.044 V45 22.65 11.13-29.08 22.74 11.17-29.08 0.001 D2% 5151.5 5039-5243 5193 5056-5299 0.020 Dmean 3773.5 3162.8-4146.8 2813.4 3305.7-4164.5 0.811 Small Bowel V5 98.46 53.31-99.8 98.30 53.33-99.88 0.306 V10 84.56 46.37-93.9 84.94 46.35-95.55 0.286 V20 68.76 34.61-73.92 67.8 33.86-76.84 0.286 V30 36.31 4.54-39.5 37.79 4.97-40.51 0.000 V40 16.58 0-28.78 16.77 0.25-29.04 0.003 V45 11.33 0-23.87 11.58 0.03-24.18 0.002 D2% 5213 3396-5407.5 5232. 3344-5449 0.008 Dmean 2655 1458.2-2894.9 2689.3 1477-2925.3 0.003 Bladder V5 100 100-100 100 100-100 1.000 V10 100 100-100 100 100-100 1.000 V20 99.76 94.98-100 99.9 97.53-100 0.068 V30 72.49 54.04-79.48 71.36 54.36-86.63 0.472 V40 31.4 19.33-42.72 31.41 19.89-43.62 0.035 V45 21.85 12.09-31.69 22.230 12.25-33.04 0.002 D2% 5245.5 5167-5326 5276.5 5164-5404 0.000 Dmean 3643.6 3254.8-3819.5 3626 3293.5-3896.4 0.028 表 2 BMS-IMRT5f、BMS-IMRT7f和BMS-IMRT9f剂量学比较
分类 BMS-IMRT5 BMS-IMRT7 BMS-IMRT9 5 vs 7 P 7 vs 9 P 5 vs 9 P 中位数 最小值-最大值 中位数 最小值-最大值 中位数 最小值-最大值 MU 705 628-1010 696 648-974 922 731-1094 0.770 0.010 0.001 HI 0.103 0.071-0.191 0.085 0.076-0.124 0.08 0.007-0.114 0.002 0.003 0.000 CI 0.81 0.73-0.84 0.85 0.81-0.87 0.87 0.83-0.89 0.001 0.012 0.000 Bone V5 98.92 96.16-99.94 98.65 95.15-100 99.96 98.51-100 0.557 0.000 0.000 V10 92.12 87.44-95.29 91.85 89.2-99.29 97.86 92.48-99.2 0.943 0.000 0.000 V20 74.46 71.79-76.24 73.95 68.37-75.84 72.57 71.18-75.09 0.085 0.006 0.001 V30 50.18 49.12-51.19 49.5 43.61-55.66 49.77 43.57-50.89 0.286 0.446 0.035 V40 29.85 23.15-86.02 29.64 19.05-35.92 28.42 17.88-33.51 0.058 0.001 0.000 V45 21.10 14.51-25.82 20.59 11.75-26.26 19.77 11.7-24.82 0.157 0.002 0.003 D2% 5323 5254-5543 5234.5 5140-5327 5230 5143-5328 0.000 0.446 0.000 Dmean 3090.4 2958.5-3192.6 3057.3 2198.6-3241.1 3099.2 2865.9-3204.9 0.061 0.022 0.711 Rectum V30 93.2 41.42-100 90.43 45.91-100 78.69 41.48-100 0.088 0.055 0.000 V40 46.85 24.93-50.93 39.48 23.05-49.9 36.89 19.03-50.64 0.014 0.049 0.010 V45 29. 12.94-37.28 22.74 11.17-29.08 24.44 8.64-33.30 0.005 0.267 0.030 D2% 5353 5158-5551 5193 5056-5299 5220.5 4975-5331 0.000 0.931 0.000 Dmean 4042.3 2985-4266 2813.4 3305.7-4164.5 3718.2 3045.6-4128.8 0.005 0.064 0.000 Small Bowel V5 96.31 53.46-99.71 98.3 53.33-99.88 98.77 52.98-99.98 0.039 0.064 0.004 V10 82.95 44.79-93.12 84.94 46.35-95.55 85.46 46.2-95.76 0.003 0.215 0.005 V20 63.1 34.01-73.05 67.8 33.86-76.84 64.45 34.06-74.07 0.006 0.001 0.231 V30 39.54 11.49-40.55 37.79 4.97-40.51 36.03 5.49-40.17 0.001 0.002 0.001 V40 18.02 0.42-27.09 16.77 0.25-29.04 16.38 0.28-27.53 0.016 0.039 0.002 V45 12.55 0.08-22.79 11.58 0.03-24.18 10.85 0.05-22.62 0.002 0.004 0.000 D2% 5262 3575-5535 5232 3344-5449 5216.5 3244-5356 0.000 0.015 0.000 Dmean 2663.5 1489.7-2884.5 2689.3 1477-2925.3 2525.6 1454.6-2925.1 0.071 0.001 0.557 Bladder V30 71.36 54.36-86.63 71.36 54.36-86.63 68.47 53.12-100 0.001 0.043 0.001 V40 31.40 19.89-43.62 31.41 19.89-43.62 31.01 17.56-70.47 0.001 0.043 0.005 V45 22.26 12.25-33.04 22.23 12.25-33.04 20.35 10.78-31.86 0.001 0.006 0.000 D2% 5276.5 5164-5404 5276.5 5164-5404 5260.5 5131-5411 0.004 0.006 0.002 Dmean 3626 3293.5-3896.4 3626 3293.5-3896.4 3616.2 3241.4-3863.1 0.000 0.004 0.000 -
[1] Torres MA, Jhingran A, Thames HD, et al. Comparison of treatment tolerance and outcomes in patients with cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in a prospective randomized trial or with standard treatment[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2008, 70(1): 118-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.028 [2] Vale C, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, et al. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26(35): 5802-12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.4368 [3] Giangreco DT, Albuquerque K, Norton J, et al. Predictors of hematologic toxicity and implications for Bone-Marrow sparing pelvic IMRT for cervical cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2007, 69(3): S399-402. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.07.1524 [4] Albuquerque K, Giangreco D, Morrison CA, et al. Radiation-related predictors of hematologic toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer and implications for bone marrow-sparing pelvic IMRT[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2011, 79(4): 1043-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.025 [5] Bazan JG, Luxton G, Kozak MM, et al. Normal tissue complication probability modeling of acute hematologic toxicity in patients receiving pelvic IMRT and concurrent chemotherapy[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012, 84(3, S): S350-3. [6] Bazan JG, Luxton G, Mok EC, et al. Normal tissue complication probability modeling of acute hematologic toxicity in patients treated with Intensity-Modulated radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012, 84(3): 700-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.072 [7] Mell LK, Tiryaki H, Ahn KH, et al. Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2008, 71(5): 1504-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.046 [8] Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC, et al. Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2006, 66(5): 1356-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.018 [9] Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Yamada SD, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2003, 57(2): 516-21. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00521-2 [10] 赵 起. 宫颈癌盆腔调强放射治疗的计划靶区变化对危险器官受照容积百分比的影响[J]. 河北医药, 2016, 38(11): 1670-2. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Thesis/Y955359 [11] 黄曼妮, 李明辉, 安菊生, 等. 宫颈癌根治性手术后辅助调强放疗(IMRT)的临床观察[J]. 癌症进展, 2011, 9(1): 89-93. http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/Paper/Detail/PeriodicalPaper_azjz201101018 [12] 周 龙. 宫颈癌术后调强放疗临床应用优化研究[D]. 南宁: 广西医科大学, 2015. [13] Lomax NJ, Scheib SG. Quantifying the degree of conformity in radiosurgery treatment planning[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2003, 55(5): 1409-12. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04599-6 [14] Van't RA, Mak AC, Moerland MA, et al. A conformation number to quantify the degree of conformality in brachytherapy and external beam irradiation:application to the prostate[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1997, 37(3): 731-4. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00601-3 [15] Brixey CJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2002, 54(5): 1388-96. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03801-4 [16] Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC, et al. Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-Phys[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2006, 66(5): 1356-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.018 [17] Roeske JC, Lujan A, Reba RC, et al. Incorporation of SPECT bone marrow imaging into intensity modulated whole-pelvic radiation therapy treatment planning for gynecologic malignancies[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2005, 77(1): 11-7. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2005.06.017 [18] 肖 锋, 李云海, 王洪林, 等. 宫颈癌术后保护骨髓的调强放疗剂量学研究[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2013,45(3): 200-6. [19] 蒋 军, 张利文, 廖 珊, 等. 宫颈癌术后三维适形放疗和共面等分设野调强放疗计划的对比分析[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2012, 32(8): 1201-6. [20] 陈文娟, 潘建基, 柏朋刚, 等. 宫颈癌分段调强放射治疗计划的应用研究[J]. 实用癌症杂志, 2014, 29(10): 1253-7.