Journal
Objective To investigate the dosimetric comparison of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal cancer by a meta-analysis. Methods A literature search was performed to collect the clinical studies on dosimetric comparison between VMAT and IMRT. The primary endpoints of interest were dosimetric parameters of target volumes and OAR, number of monitor units (MUs), and treatment time (TT). Results A total of 17 studies involving 323 patients were included in this meta-analysis. When the total dose was>50.4 Gy, VMAT showed significantly lower mean dose (Dmean) of gross tumor volume (GTV) and maximum dose (Dmax) of planning target volume (PTV) than IMRT (P=0.009;P=0.039). There were no significant differences in Dmean, V30, and V40 of the heart, Dmax of the spinal cord, and V5, V10, and Dmean of the lung between VMAT and IMRT (P>0.05). VMAT showed significantly lower V15, V20, and V30 of the lung than IMRT (P=0.001;P=0.000;P=0.023). When the single dose was 1.8 Gy and 2.0 Gy, VMAT showed significantly lower TT (reduced by 323.5 s and 193.7 s) and number of MUs (reduced by 275.4 MU and 134.2 MU) than IMRT (P=0.000 and 0.009;P=0.000 and 0.022). Conclusions VMAT can significantly reduce TT, MUs, irradiation dose to the lung, and the risk of radiation pneumonitis, and improve the utilization rate of equipment. Compared with IMRT, VMAT has no significant advantages in protection of the spinal cord and the heart and dosimetric parameters of target volumes except Dmean of PTV and Dmean and Dmax of GTV when the total dose was ≤50.4 Gy.
Objective To compare the pre-and post-operative tumor target volume and to examine the consistency in physical dosimetric parameters of organs at risk (OAR) following 3D-printed coplanar template (3D-PCT)-assisted and CT-guided radioactive seed implantation. Methods The 3D-printed coplanar template was designed using a computer software, and the coordinate system was established where the center was used as the basis for setting the x axis and y axis. Crosses defining the center of treatment were drawn on the patient’s body and matched with the corresponding central point, x axis, and y axis of the coplanar template. 3D-PCT-assisted and CT-guided radioactive seed implantation was performed based on the pre-operative plan, and the pre-operative, operative, and post-operative plans were designed to evaluate the target tumor volume and the normal dose received by the tissues. In addition, dosimetric parameters, including D90(minimum dose received by 90% of the gross target volume), V100, V150, V200(percentage of GTV that received 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescribed dose, respectively), minimum peripheral dose (MPD), conformal index (CI), external index (EI), and homogeneity index (HI) in the pre-operative and post-operative plans were also assessed and compared using the Wilcoxon test. Results Fourteen patients treated in our institution from August to October, 2016 were included in this study. The median age of the patients was 61.5 years, and the median Karnofsky Performance Scale score was 80. A total of 14 lesions from the 14 patients were treated by seed implantation in the neck (n=4), chest (n=3), abdomen (n=5), and pelvis (n=2). Of the 14 patients that underwent implantation, 8 had previously received radiation therapy, and 6 had not received radiation therapy. Dosage optimization was performed for all patients during the operation. The median activity of the implanted seeds was 0.625 mCi (0.55-0.75 mCi,1 Ci=3.7×1010 Bq), and the preoperatively planned median number of needling and implanted seeds were 9(4-34) and 45.5(10-162), respectively. However, the actual median number of needling and implanted seeds were 9.5(4-34) and 45.5(10-162), respectively. Dosimetric analysis showed that there were no significant changes in tumor volume (P=0.135), D90(P=0.208), MPD (P=0.104), V100(P=0.542), V150(P=0.754), V200(P=0.583), CI (P=0.426), EI (P=0.326), and HI (P=0.952) after implantation. Conclusions 3D-PCT guidance and dosage optimization can result in good consistency between pre-and post-operative plans for radioactive seed implantation. 3D-PCT is a convenient and cheap technique suitable for large-scale clinical application.
Objective To investigate the impact of injection current (IC), injection voltage (IV), and pulse forming network (PFN) on energy (depth ratio D20/D10) and profiles of helical tomotherapy, and to improve the quality control for the stability of beam characteristics. Methods The energy and profiles were measured by ion chamber and TomoDose at different values of IC, IV, and PFN, the relationship between the energy and various parameters was evaluated by Pearson correlation analysis, and the changes in profiles were evaluated by comparative analysis. Results The energy had no correlation with IV and PFN values (P>0.05), but had a strong correlation with IC value (P=0.007), which showed a downward trend with the increase in IC. For the profiles in the x direction:(1) in the main beam region (-200 to 200 mm), the shoulder area of the profiles increased regularly with the increase in IC. There were no significant changes for the profiles when the IV values ranged from 6.42 V to 6.54 V, and the shoulder area of the profiles reached the highest point with IV=6.60 V, then decreased with further increase in IV. The shoulder area of the profiles decreased regularly with the increase in PFN.(2) In the penumbral region (±200 mm outside), all the three parameters had no effect on the profiles. For the profiles in the y direction:(1) in the main beam region (-20 to 20 mm), the profiles showed an upward trend in the area with an off-axis distance less than 16 mm when IC values were 5.40 V and 5.46 V, and showed an upward trend in the area with an off-axis distance less than 16 mm. But on the whole, the shoulder area of the profiles increased with the increase in IC, and was not affected by IV and PFN.(2) In the penumbral region (±20 mm outside), the profiles decreased regularly with the increase in IV, and was not affected by IC and PFN. IC had the highest influence on the profiles in the main beam region, followed by PFN and IV. Only IV had impact on the profiles in the penumbral region. Conclusions When the energy needs to be adjusted, the IC value should be given a priority, and PFN should be taken as a supplementary factor. When the profile needs to be adjusted, the IC value should be given a priority, and IV should be used as an auxiliary factor in the main beam region. But in the penumbral region, adjustment of parameters is only related to the profiles in y direction, so the IV value should be adjusted. This study has a guiding role in the quality control of energy and profiles, which can reduce the blindness of quality control, thus saving the time.
Objective To compare the setup errors of the negative pressure vacuum air cushion(vacuum bag) and the Orfit body foam fixator (Orfit frame) in radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Methods A total of 40 patients receiving three-dimensional radiotherapy for cervical cancer were enrolled in this study and equally and randomly divided into vacuum bag group and Orfit frame group. And the two groups were divided into Orfit-1 group, Orfit-2 group, vacuum-1 group, and vacuum-2 group according to the treatment course. The Orfit-1 group and vacuum-1 group were the data in the first 12 treatments, while the Orfit-2 group and vacuum-2 group were the data in the following 13 treatments. A cone-beam computed tomography scan was performed before each treatment to analyze setup error and then the body position was corrected to start the treatment. Comparison of continuous data between groups was made by paired t-test, while comparison of categorical data was made by chi-square test. Results There was a significant difference in the setup error in y-axis direction between the Orfit-1 group and the Orfit-2 group (P=0.003) and the setup error in r-axis direction between the vacuum-1 group and the vacuum-2 group (P=0.013). There were no significant differences in the setup errors in four directions (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis, and r-axis) between the Orfit-1 group and the vacuum-1 group (P>0.05). There were significant differences in the setup errors in y-axis and z-axis directions between the Orfit-2 group and the vacuum-2 group (P=0.007;P=0.001). Conclusions The Orfit frame and the vacuum bag have their own advantages and disadvantages in the fixation of body position in radiotherapy for cervical cancer. The setup error can be improved by long vacuum bags, ultrasound bladder capacity scanner, image-guided radiotherapy, or sectional radiotherapy plan.
News
Cooperation unit