高级检索

碳离子均匀扫描治疗与光子IMRT治疗颅底恶性肿瘤的剂量学比较研究

Dosimetric Comparison Between Carbon-ion Uniform Scanning Mode Radiotherapy and Photon IMRT in the Malignant Skull Base Tumors

  • 摘要: 比较分析国产重离子加速器均匀扫描与光子调强放疗(IMRT)治疗计划在颅底恶性肿瘤治疗中的剂量学差异。回顾分析国产重离子设备(Heavy Ion Medical Machine, HIMM)采用均匀扫描方式治疗8例颅底恶性肿瘤的患者治疗计划,包括7例脊索瘤、1例软骨肉瘤。碳离子治疗(Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, CIRT)计划采用兰州科近泰基公司的ciPlan计划系统(V1.0)进行计划设计,处方剂量为计划靶区57.6~60.8 Gy (RBE),16分次,单次3.6~3.8 Gy(RBE)。治疗使用多叶准直器(Multi Leaf Collimator, MLC)调节射束横向适形度,脊形过滤器(Ridge Filter, RF)展宽Bragg峰,补偿器(Bolus)调节射束远端的适形度。使用90°固定水平治疗头,采取床角为0°,及转床90°或180°实现两野交角照射或对穿照射。光子IMRT计划采用美国Varian公司的Eclipse计划系统(V13.5)设计5野固定野调强计划,处方剂量和CIRT计划一致。所有计划在满足危及器官(Organ At Risk, OAR)限量的基础上进行剂量评估,相关剂量学参数包括: 靶区覆盖、适形度指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)、以及危及器官受量。PTV的V95两者之间比较无统计学差异(P=0.106),Dmean、CI、HI均有统计学差异, IMRT计划优于CIRT计划(P值分别为0.048, 0.031和0.024)。OAR受量方面,大部分OAR的CIRT计划比IMRT计划的小,但没有统计学差异,而视交叉、左晶体、右晶体的最大剂量及脑干、右侧视神经的平均剂量有统计学差异(P值分别为0.034, 0.000, 0.047, 0.008和0.030)。OAR与靶区的距离,使用最小hausdorff距离(HDmin)来描述,当HDmin>7.1 mm时,CIRT计划明显优于IMRT计划。均匀扫描方式的碳离子治疗计划在靶区均匀度及适形度方面劣于光子IMRT计划,但在OAR受量方面,均匀扫描碳离子治疗计划优于IMRT计划。剂量学优势能否转化为临床获益有待于通过临床研究进一步验证。

     

    Abstract: Comparative analysis of the dosimetric differences between Chinese-produced heavy ion accelerator uniform scanning and photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) treatment plans in the treatment of skull base malignancies. A retrospective analysis of the treatment plans for 8 patients with skull base malignancies treated with the domestic heavy ion equipment (Heavy Ion Medical Machine, HIMM) using uniform scanning, including 7 chordoma and 1 chondrosarcoma. Carbon ion radiotherapy(CIRT) plans were designed using the ciPlan planning system (V1.0) from Lanzhou Kejintaiji Company, with a prescription dose of 57.6~60.8 Gy (RBE) in the planning target volume, delivered in 16 fractions of 3.6~3.8 Gy (RBE) per fraction. The treatment used a multi-leaf collimator(MLC) to adjust beam conformity, a ridge filter(RF) to spread-out the Bragg peak, and a bolus to adjust beam conformity at the distal end. A fixed horizontal nozzle was used at a couch angle of 0°, and the couch rotated 90° or 180° to achieve two-field intersecting or opposing fields. The photon IMRT plan used the Eclipse planning system (V13.5) from Varian company to design a fixed 5-field IMRT plan, with the same prescription dose as the CIRT plan. All plans were evaluated for dosimetric parameters based on organ-at-risk(OAR) dose limits, including target coverage, conformity index(CI), homogeneity index(HI), and OAR dose. There was no statistically significant difference in PTV V95 between the two plans (P=0.106), but Dmean, CI, and HI were statistically different, with the IMRT plan superior to the CIRT plan (P values of 0.048, 0.031, and 0.024, respectively). Regarding OAR dose, most OAR doses in the CIRT plan were smaller than those in the IMRT plan, but there was no statistically significant difference. However, the maximum dose to the optic chiasm, left and right lenses, and the mean dose to the brainstem and right optic nerve differed significantly between the two plans (P values of 0.034, 0.000, 0.047, 0.008, and 0.030, respectively). The distance between OAR and target volume was described using the minimum Hausdorff distance(HDmin), and when HDmin was greater than 7.1 mm, the CIRT plan was significantly superior to the IMRT plan. The uniform scanning CIRT was inferior to the photon IMRT plan in terms of target uniformity and conformity, but superior to the IMRT plan in terms of OAR dose. Whether the dosimetric advantages can be translated into clinical benefits remains to be further validated by clinical studies.

     

/

返回文章
返回