Comparison of gating around end-expiration and end-inspiration in radiotherapy for lung cancer
Comparison of gating around end-expiration and end-inspiration in radiotherapy for lung cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.radonc.2009.09.002
复制
发表时间：
2009-12-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Oya, Natsuo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Saito, Tetsuo;Sakamoto, Takashi;Oya, Natsuo
目的：材料与方法：对15例肺癌患者进行了5种不同的放射治疗方案的设计，并对不同方案的治疗效果进行了比较。分别采用非门控照射（方案1，PI）、呼气末（P2）和吸气末（P3）的幅度门控照射、呼气末（P4）和吸气末（P5）的相位门控照射。与P2相比，P3肺动脉平均闭合度降低0.5 ± 0.4Gy，V20降低1.2 ± 0.9%，V10降低1.4 ± 0.8%，V5降低1.5 ± 0.9%（P <0.01）。P4和P5之间的这些参数无统计学显著差异。在600监测单位/分钟（MU/分钟）的剂量率下，100 MU所需的平均治疗时间为10。P1、P2、P3分别为26、64、33和33 s。结论：在基于幅度的门控方案中，吸气末（P3）门控方案对肺剂量的降低作用最大，但治疗时间最长。两种基于相位的门控方案（P4和P5）在肺辐射剂量和治疗时间上无显著差异。(C)2009 Elsevier爱尔兰有限公司版权所有放射治疗和肿瘤学93（2009）430-435
Purpose: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of gating around end-expiration and end-inspiration.Materials and methods: We created five irradiation protocols to treat 15 patients with lung cancer. They were non-gated irradiation (protocol 1, PI),amplitude-based gating around end-expiration (P2) and end- inspiration (P3), and phase-based gating mound end-expiration (P4) and end-inspiration (P5) We compared the lung dosimetric parameters and the treatment tune.Results. compared to P2, in P3 the mean lung close was reduced by 0 5 +/- 0.4 Gy.V20 by 1.2 +/- 0.9%, V10 by 1.4 +/- 0.8%, and V5 by 1.5 +/- 0 9% (p < 0 01). There was no statistically significant difference in these parameters; between P4 and P5. At a dose rate of 600 monitor units/min (MUs/min), the average treatment time required for 100 MUs was 10. 26, 64, 33, and 33 s, respectively, for P1, P2, P3. P4, and P5.Conclusions: With amplitude-based gating, gating around end-inspiration (P3) produced a greater decrease in the lung dose, however, the treatment time was longest among the four gated protocols There was no significant difference between the two phase-based gating protocols (P4 and P)) with respect to tile radiation dose to the lungs and the treatment trine. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved Radiotherapy and Oncology 93 (2009) 430-435