Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer.
Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13014-018-1114-y
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-31
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nishimura Y
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tamura M;Monzen H;Matsumoto K;Kubo K;Otsuka M;Inada M;Doi H;Ishikawa K;Nakamatsu K;Sumida I;Mizuno H;Yoon DK;Nishimura Y
这项研究阐明了基于商业知识的治疗计划(KBP)生成的前列腺癌体积调制弧疗(VMAT)计划的机械性能，以及KBP系统是否可以在不出现任何重大机械性能问题的情况下应用于临床。采用现有临床计划对连续30例前列腺癌患者进行了VMAT治疗。将优化后的单个KBPS与其他51个临床计划进行训练，比较其机械性能和剂量学精度。机械性能指标包括平均视野面积(MFA)、平均不对称距离(MAD)、横轴评分(CAS)、闭合叶片评分(CLS)、小孔评分(SAS)、叶片行程(LT)、调制复杂性评分(MCSv)和监测单元(MU)。γ通过率采用ArcCheck和EBT3型胶片评定。平均机械性能指标(临床计划与KBP)分别为：18.28亿平方厘米与17.25亿平方厘米(MFA)、21.08百万毫米与20.47百万毫米(MAD)、0.54百万毫米与0.55(CAS)、0.040与0.051(CLS)、0.20VS.0.23(SAS5 Mm)、458.5毫米与418.8毫米(LT)、0.27%与0.27(MCSV)、618.2与622.1(MU)。观察到CLS和LT有显著差异。γ平均合格率分别为99.0%vs.99.1%(3%/3 mm)和92.4%vs92.5%(2%/2 mm)，EBT3膜分别为99.5%vs99.4%(3%/3 mm)和95.2%vs95.4%(2%/2 mm)。与临床计划相比，KBP使用了更低的多叶准直器(MLC)行程和更多的闭合或更小的MLC孔。VMAT治疗前列腺癌的KBP系统在临床上是可以接受的，没有任何重大问题。
This study clarified the mechanical performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer generated with a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) and whether KBP system could be applied clinically without any major problems with mechanical performance. Thirty consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent VMAT using extant clinical plans were evaluated. The mechanical performance and dosimetric accuracy of the single optimized KBPs, which were trained with other 51 clinical plans, were compared with the clinical plans. The mechanical performance metrics were mean field area (MFA), mean asymmetry distance (MAD), cross-axis score (CAS), closed leaf score (CLS), small aperture score (SAS), leaf travel (LT), modulation complexity score (MCSv), and monitor unit (MU). The γ passing rates were evaluated with ArcCheck and EBT3 film. The mean mechanical performance metrics (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 18.28 cm2 vs. 17.25 cm2 (MFA), 21.08 mm vs. 20.47 mm (MAD), 0.54 vs. 0.55 (CAS), 0.040 vs. 0.051 (CLS), 0.20 vs. 0.23 (SAS5mm), 458.5 mm vs. 418.8 mm (LT), 0.27 vs. 0.27 (MCSv), and 618.2 vs. 622.1 (MU), respectively. Significant differences were observed for CLS and LT. The average γ passing rates (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 99.0% vs. 99.1% (3%/3 mm) and 92.4% vs. 92.5% (2%/2 mm) with ArcCHeck, and 99.5% vs. 99.4% (3%/3 mm) and 95.2% vs. 95.4% (2%/2 mm) with EBT3 film, respectively. The KBP used lower multileaf collimator (MLC) travel and more closed or small MLC apertures than the clinical plan. The KBP system of VMAT for the prostate cancer was acceptable for clinical use without any major problems.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Wu H;Jiang F;Yue H;Li S;Zhang Y
通讯作者：
Zhang Y
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
García-Vicente F;Fernández V;Bermúdez R;Gómez A;Pérez L;Zapatero A;Torres JJ
通讯作者：
Torres JJ
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Nelms, Benjamin E.;Opp, Daniel;Feygelman, Vladimir
通讯作者：
Feygelman, Vladimir
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
McNiven, Andrea L.;Sharpe, Michael B.;Purdie, Thomas G.
通讯作者：
Purdie, Thomas G.
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Crowe, Scott B.;Sutherland, Bess;Kairn, Tanya
通讯作者：
Kairn, Tanya