...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Radiotherapy and oncology: Journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology >Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk.
【24h】

Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk.

机译：在临床目标量和/或有风险的器官有显着差异的前列腺癌患者中，强度调节（IMRT）优于保形放疗（3D-CRT）的治疗计划结果始终更好。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage of planning and clinical target volume (PTV, CTV), and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated (3D-IMRT) and conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) before and after internal organ variation in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with clinically significant interfraction volume changes. Patients were treated with 3D-IMRT to 80Gy (minimum PTV dose of 76Gy, excluding rectum). Fictitious, equivalent 3D-CRT plans (80Gy at isocenter, with 95% isodose (76Gy) coverage of PTV, with rectal blocking above 76Gy) were generated using the same planning CT data set ("CT planning"). The plans were then also applied to a verification CT scan ("CT verify") obtained at a different moment. PTV, CTV, and OAR dose coverage were compared using non-parametric tests statistics for V95, V90 (% of the volume receiving 95 or 90% of the dose) and D50 (dose to 50% of the volume). RESULTS: Mean V95 of the PTV for "CT planning" was 94.3% (range, 88-99) vs 89.1% (range, 84-94.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.005), respectively. Mean V95 of the CTV for "CT verify" was 97% for both 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT. Mean D50 of the rectum for "CT planning" was 26.8Gy (range, 22-35) vs 43.5Gy (range, 33.5-50.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.0002), respectively. For "CT verify", this D50 was 31.1Gy (range, 16.5-44) vs 44.2Gy (range, 34-55) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.006), respectively. V95 of the rectum was 0% for both plans for "CT planning", and 2.3% (3D-IMRT) vs 2.1% (3D-CRT) for "CT verify" (p=non-sig.). CONCLUSION: Dose coverage of the PTV and OAR was better with 3D-IMRT for each patient and remained so after internal volume changes.
机译：目的：比较强度调制（3D-IMRT）和常规适形放疗（3D-CRT）之前和之后的计划和临床目标量（PTV，CTV）以及高危器官（OAR）的剂量范围前列腺癌的器官变异。方法和材料：我们选择了10例具有明显临床意义的间质改变的患者。患者接受3D-IMRT至80Gy（PTV的最低剂量为76Gy，不包括直肠）治疗。使用相同的计划CT数据集（“ CT计划”）生成了虚拟的等效3D-CRT计划（等中心点80Gy，PTV的等剂量剂量（95Gy）为95％，直肠阻滞超过76Gy）。然后，该计划还应用于在不同时刻获得的验证CT扫描（“ CT验证”）。使用V95，V90（占剂量的95％或90％的体积百分比）和D50（占体积的50％）的非参数测试统计数据比较了PTV，CTV和OAR剂量覆盖率。结果：“ CT计划”的PTV平均V95分别为94.3％（范围88-99）和3D-IMRT和3D-CRT的89.1％（范围84-94.5）（p = 0.005）。对于3D-IMRT和3D-CRT，用于“ CT验证”的CTV的平均V95为97％。 “ CT计划”的直肠平均D50为26.8Gy（范围22-35），而3D-IMRT和3D-CRT的平均D50为43.5Gy（范围33.5-50.5）（p = 0.0002）。对于“ CT验证”，此3D-IMRT和3D-CRT的D50分别为31.1Gy（范围16.5-44）和44.2Gy（范围34-55）（p = 0.006）。两种“ CT计划”计划的直肠V95分别为0％，“ CT验证”的直肠V95为2.1％（3D-IMRT），而2.1％（3D-CRT）（p =非签名）。结论：3D-IMRT对每位患者的PTV和OAR剂量覆盖率更好，并且在内部容积变化后仍然如此。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号