Fiducial marker matching versus vertebral body matching: Dosimetric impact of patient positioning in carbon ion radiotherapy for primary hepatic cancer
Fiducial marker matching versus vertebral body matching: Dosimetric impact of patient positioning in carbon ion radiotherapy for primary hepatic cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.12.018
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Nakano, Takashi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Abe, Satoshi;Kubota, Yoshiki;Nakano, Takashi
目的：本研究的目的是比较原发性肝癌碳离子放射治疗患者体位中基准标记匹配（MM）与椎体匹配（VM）的剂量体积参数。材料和方法：回顾性研究20例原发性肝癌患者，评估两次CT扫描肿瘤位置和剂量分布再现性的变化。一个用于治疗计划，另一个用于剂量确认，在第一个治疗日的前一天获得。将临床靶体积（CTV）（D-98）和正常肝脏体积（不包括接受20 Gy相对生物有效性（RBE）（V-20）的CTV）的覆盖范围用作评价参数。此外，在VM和MM中计算了肿瘤运动和D98的相关性。处方剂量为 60.0 Gy (RBE)，分四次给药 (15 Gy/fx)。结果：VM 和 MM 的中位（范围）D-98 分别为 57.9 (20.8-59.9) 和 59.9 (57.2-60.3) Gy (RBE)。 VM 和 MM 的中位（范围）V-20 分别为 17.9 (4.8-44.4) 和 16.2 (4.7-44.9) Gy (RBE)。 MM 的 D-98 显着大于 VM (p = 0.001)，但 V-20 没有显示显着差异 (p > 0.05)。 12 名 VM 患者在临床上可接受（D-98 > 57 Gy (RBE)），而所有 MM 患者在临床上可接受。 VM 的标记物移动与 D-98 的减少相关（R = -0.814）。结论：与 VM 相比，所有患者的 MM 临床上可接受。这表明 MM 比 VM 更稳健。 (C) 2016 年意大利医疗协会。由爱思唯尔有限公司出版
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the dose-volume parameters of fiducial marker matching (MM) with vertebral body matching (VM) in patient positioning for carbon ion radiotherapy for primary hepatic cancer.Materials and methods: Twenty patients with primary hepatic cancer were retrospectively studied to assess changes in reproducibility of tumor position and dose distribution on two CT scans. One was for treatment planning and another was for dose confirmation, acquired the day before the first treatment day. The coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) (D-98) and normal liver volume excluding the CTV which received 20 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) (V-20) were used as evaluation parameters. Additionally, the correlation of tumor movement and D98 was calculated in VM and MM. The prescription dose was 60.0 Gy (RBE) delivered in four fractions (15 Gy/fx).Results: The median (range) D-98 for VM and MM was 57.9 (20.8-59.9) and 59.9 (57.2-60.3) Gy (RBE), respectively. The median (range) V-20 for VM and MM was 17.9 (4.8-44.4) and 16.2 (4.7-44.9) Gy (RBE), respectively. The D-98 for MM was significantly larger than that for VM (p = 0.001), although V-20 showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). Twelve patients were clinically acceptable (D-98 > 57 Gy (RBE)) with VM, while all patients were clinically acceptable with MM. Marker movement correlated with a decrease of D-98 for VM (R = -0.814).Conclusion: Compared with VM, MM was clinically acceptable in all patients. This suggests that MM is more robust than VM. (C) 2016 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd.