- 期刊
A Planning Study for Feasibility of Applying Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
透過治療計劃之研究以探討針對局部晚期頭頸癌使用強度調控弧形治療之適行性
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of applying VMAT for HNC patients in daily practice by comparing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with locally advanced head-and-neck cancer (HNC) with regard to the dosimetric parameters and efficiency of delivery.Material & Method: Nine locally advanced HNC patients on either an IMRT or VMAT treatment plan were selected for this study. Another corresponding plan using an alternative technique was generated for comparison. We applied an adaptive strategy with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in all radiation therapy protocols, including an initial plan and a reduced plan with acquisition of CT images about 4 weeks later. The Philips Pinnacle³® Planning System v. 9.0 was adopted for designing all treatment plans. Dosimetric parameters compared between VMAT and IMRT plans included target coverage, dose conformity, dose homogeneity, organs at risk (OAR) sparing, monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time.Result: The average number of arc used in the VMAT plan was 2.07 and the number of fields per IMRT plan was 6.5. The VMAT and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage (V100% ＞ 98% and ＞ 96%, respectively). There was no significant difference between VMAT and IMRT in conformity (CI= 1.73 and 1.63, respectively, p= 0.546), homogeneity of PTV-H (HI= 1.08 and 1.07, respectively, p= 0.387), PTV-M (HI = 1.10 and 1.10, respectively, p= 0.891) and PTV-L (HI = 1.13 and 1.12, respectively, p= 0.369). There were similar dose-volume histogram distributions between these two techniques for most of OARs. No significant difference existed in performance of parotid sparing by using these two techniques. Compared to IMRT, VMAT technique significantly reduced the MUs by 16.1% (757.0 versus 635.4 MUs, p= 0.011) and the average treatment time by 4.2 minutes (8.7 versus 4.5 minutes, p ＜ 0.001).Conclusion: This study demonstrated that equally clinical acceptable dose distributions can be achieved in both VMAT and IMRT techniques for HNC. In addition, VMAT provided faster delivery time and lower executed monitor units. Therefore, it is feasible to apply VMAT for HNC for improving the efficiency without compromising the quality of planning dosimetry.
並列摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of applying VMAT for HNC patients in daily practice by comparing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with locally advanced head-and-neck cancer (HNC) with regard to the dosimetric parameters and efficiency of delivery.Material & Method: Nine locally advanced HNC patients on either an IMRT or VMAT treatment plan were selected for this study. Another corresponding plan using an alternative technique was generated for comparison. We applied an adaptive strategy with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in all radiation therapy protocols, including an initial plan and a reduced plan with acquisition of CT images about 4 weeks later. The Philips Pinnacle³® Planning System v. 9.0 was adopted for designing all treatment plans. Dosimetric parameters compared between VMAT and IMRT plans included target coverage, dose conformity, dose homogeneity, organs at risk (OAR) sparing, monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time.Result: The average number of arc used in the VMAT plan was 2.07 and the number of fields per IMRT plan was 6.5. The VMAT and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage (V100% ＞ 98% and ＞ 96%, respectively). There was no significant difference between VMAT and IMRT in conformity (CI= 1.73 and 1.63, respectively, p= 0.546), homogeneity of PTV-H (HI= 1.08 and 1.07, respectively, p= 0.387), PTV-M (HI = 1.10 and 1.10, respectively, p= 0.891) and PTV-L (HI = 1.13 and 1.12, respectively, p= 0.369). There were similar dose-volume histogram distributions between these two techniques for most of OARs. No significant difference existed in performance of parotid sparing by using these two techniques. Compared to IMRT, VMAT technique significantly reduced the MUs by 16.1% (757.0 versus 635.4 MUs, p= 0.011) and the average treatment time by 4.2 minutes (8.7 versus 4.5 minutes, p ＜ 0.001).Conclusion: This study demonstrated that equally clinical acceptable dose distributions can be achieved in both VMAT and IMRT techniques for HNC. In addition, VMAT provided faster delivery time and lower executed monitor units. Therefore, it is feasible to apply VMAT for HNC for improving the efficiency without compromising the quality of planning dosimetry.
延伸閱讀
- 賴鵬安、邱仲峰、趙坤山、翁培豐、葉啓源（2006）。不同強度調控放射線治療計畫系統在頭頸部腫瘤結果之比較。中華放射線技術學雜誌，30(1)，27-40。https://doi.org/10.30045/CJRT.200606.0004
- 李曉飛、李財福、丁慧敏、趙珮如、許軒之、廖冠焯、方富民（2012）。避免頭頸部癌症放射治療口乾症的治療計劃限值：使用生活問卷調查數據資料的QUANTEC準則驗證。放射治療與腫瘤學，19(3)，189-199。https://doi.org/10.6316/TRO/201219(3)189
- Kao, H. F. (2022). 以生物資訊學模式探討腫瘤微環境對頭頸癌病患接受免疫調節點抑制劑複方治療之效應研究 [doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University]. Airiti Library. https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202200697
- 呂宜興、張珮涵、李佩怡、劉景萍（2015）。研擬適切的頭頸癌患者治療後追蹤計畫。台灣癌症醫學雜誌，2(2)，127-131。https://doi.org/10.6323/JCRP.2015.2.2.03
- 李怡昀、林慧芬、林亞蓉（2021）。外加徒手治療對放射線治療及手術後頭頸部癌療癒者的效果：個案報告。物理治療，46(2)，73-80。https://doi.org/10.6215/FJPT.202106_46(2).0003