摘要
目的分析PTW 729电离室矩阵不同验证方法用于宫颈癌术后调强放疗计划验证的结果差异。方法回顾性分析2020年8至12月于南通大学第二附属医院行宫颈癌术后调强放疗的10例女性患者的放疗资料。患者年龄44~69岁, 中位年龄59岁, 均采用七野均分方式进行调强放疗计划设计。采用治疗计划系统分别在4.2 cm厚的固体水+电离室矩阵+5.0 cm厚的固体水组成的RW3固体水模体图像上生成二维射野角度归0°验证计划(V1), 在PTW Octavius 4D模体图像上生成二维射野角度归0°验证计划(V2)、二维实际射野角度验证计划(V3)和三维实际射野角度验证计划(V4)。在加速器上实测后分析宫颈癌术后调强放疗计划不同验证模体(V1vs. V2)、二维射野角度归0°和二维实际射野角度验证(V2vs. V3)、二维和三维验证(V1、V2、V3vs. V4)的结果差异。计量资料的比较采用配对t检验。结果 (1) V1的计划验证通过率高于V2[(99.72±0.44)%对(94.95±6.13)%, t=2.621, P<0.05], 而评估点数低于V2 (311± 50对392±61, t=-6.992, P<0.05)。(2)V2的180°和232°射野的单野验证通过率均高于V3 [(96.86±3.79)%对(95.72±3.56)%, (98.50±2.28)%对(92.98±5.04)%, t=2.294、4.052, 均P< 0.05 ]。(3) V1、V2、V3的计划验证通过率显著高于V4 [(99.72±0.44)%、(94.95±6.13)%、(94.72±6.43)%对(86.91±2.63)%, t=17.912、6.645、5.962, 均P<0.05], 而评估点数显著低于V4 (311±50、392±61、391±60对726 034±61 656 , t=-37.244、-37.253、-37.252, 均P<0.05)。结论 PTW 729电离室矩阵不同验证方法获得的调强放疗计划验证结果存在一定差异, 尤其是180°和232°的单野验证结果。评判宫颈癌术后调强放疗计划是否通过验证需结合所采用的验证方法并对剂量差异区域的评估点进行分析。
Objective To analyze the differences of intensity-modulated radiotherapy(IMRT)plan verification results obtained from various verification methods with PTW 729 ionization chamber matrix for postoperative cervical cancer patients.Methods The radiotherapy data of 10 postoperative cervical cancer patients,aged 44–69 years old,with a median age of 59 years old were analyzed retrospectively.The patients were underwent IMRT in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University from August 2020 to December 2020.The IMRT plan was designed with seven fields.Using the treatment planning system,four verification plans,namely,V1–V4,with different phantoms were designed.Three 2D isocenter plane verification plans(V1−V3)and one 3D stereoscopic verification plan(V4)were designed.In V1,all field angles were converted to 0°,and PTW 729 RW3 solid water was used which composed of 4.2 cm-thick solid water+ionization chamber matrix+5.0 cm-thick solid water.In V2,all field angles were converted to 0°,and the PTW Octavius 4D phantom was used.The actual angle and the Octavius 4D phantom were used to obtain one-plane verification(V3)and stereoscopic verification(V4).Then,all of the above mentioned four verification plans were actually measured in an accelerator,and the differences of the measurement results between the verification plans in which different verification phantoms were used(V1 vs.V2),between two 2D plans in which all field angles were converted to 0°or actual angle were used(V2 vs.V3),and between 2D and 3D plans(V1,V2,V3 vs.V4),were analyzed with paired t test respectively.Results(1)The plan validation pass rate of V1 was significantly higher than that of V2((99.72±0.44)%vs.(94.95±6.13)%,t=2.621,P<0.05).The evaluation point of V1 were lower than that of V2(311±50 vs.392±61,t=−6.992,P<0.05).(2)The single-field validation pass rates of 180°and 232°fields in V2 were higher than that in V3((96.86±3.79)%vs.(95.72±3.56)%,(98.50±2.28)%vs.(92.98±5.04)%;t=2.294,4.052;both P<0.05).(3)The plan validation pass ra
作者
曹丽媛
鞠永健
李克新
高璇
Cao Liyuan;Ju Yongjian;Li Kexin;Gao Xuan(Department of Radiation Oncology,the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University,Nantong 226001,China)
出处
《国际放射医学核医学杂志》
2021年第10期631-635,共5页
International Journal of Radiation Medicine and Nuclear Medicine
基金
国家自然科学基金(10705016)
南通市卫生和计划生育委员会科研课题(WKZL2018005)。
关键词
宫颈肿瘤
辐射剂量
放射疗法
调强适形
剂量验证
电离室矩阵
Uterine cervical neoplasms
Radiation dosage
Radiotherapy,intensity-modulated
Dose verification
Ionization chamber matrix
