基于模型的剂量计算算法对宫颈癌高剂量率近距离放射治疗的影响。

IF 1.2 Q4 ONCOLOGY Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy Pub Date : 2024-07-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5603/rpor.100778
Shraddha Srivastava, Ajay Kannathuparambil Venugopal, Moirangthem Nara Singh
{"title":"基于模型的剂量计算算法对宫颈癌高剂量率近距离放射治疗的影响。","authors":"Shraddha Srivastava, Ajay Kannathuparambil Venugopal, Moirangthem Nara Singh","doi":"10.5603/rpor.100778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Task Group 43 (TG-43) formalism does not consider the tissue and applicator heterogeneities. This study is to compare the effect of model-based dose calculation algorithms, like Advanced Collapsed Cone Engine (ACE), on dose calculation with the TG-43 dose calculation formalism in patients with cervical carcinoma.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>20 patients of cervical carcinoma treated with a high dose rate of intracavitary brachytherapy were prospectively studied. The target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured in the Oncentra treatment planning system (Elekta, Veenendaal, The Netherlands). All patients were planned with cobalt-60 (Co-60) and iridium-192 (Ir-192) sources with doses of 21 Gy in 3 fractions. These plans were calculated with TG-43 formalism and a model-based dose calculation algorithm ACE. The dosimetric parameters of TG-43 and ACE-based plans were compared in terms of target coverage and OAR doses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For Co-60-based plans, the percentage differences in the D90 and V100 values for high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) were 0.36 ± 0.43% and 0.17 ± 0.31%, respectively. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the percentage differences for D2cc volumes were -0.50 ± 0.51%, -0.16 ± 0.53% and -0.37 ± 1.21%, respectively. For Ir-192-based plans, the percentage difference in the D90 for HR-CTV was 0.54 ± 0.79%, while V100 was 0.24 ± 0.29%. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the doses to 2cc volume were 0.35 ± 1.06%, 0.99 ± 0.74% and 0.74 ± 1.92%, respectively. No significant differences were found in the dosimetric parameters calculated with ACE and TG-43.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ACE algorithm reduced doses to OARs and targets. However, ACE and TG-43 did not show significant differences in the dosimetric parameters of the target and OARs with both sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":47283,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","volume":"29 3","pages":"300-308"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of model-based dose-calculation algorithms in high dose rate brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma.\",\"authors\":\"Shraddha Srivastava, Ajay Kannathuparambil Venugopal, Moirangthem Nara Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/rpor.100778\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Task Group 43 (TG-43) formalism does not consider the tissue and applicator heterogeneities. This study is to compare the effect of model-based dose calculation algorithms, like Advanced Collapsed Cone Engine (ACE), on dose calculation with the TG-43 dose calculation formalism in patients with cervical carcinoma.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>20 patients of cervical carcinoma treated with a high dose rate of intracavitary brachytherapy were prospectively studied. The target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured in the Oncentra treatment planning system (Elekta, Veenendaal, The Netherlands). All patients were planned with cobalt-60 (Co-60) and iridium-192 (Ir-192) sources with doses of 21 Gy in 3 fractions. These plans were calculated with TG-43 formalism and a model-based dose calculation algorithm ACE. The dosimetric parameters of TG-43 and ACE-based plans were compared in terms of target coverage and OAR doses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For Co-60-based plans, the percentage differences in the D90 and V100 values for high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) were 0.36 ± 0.43% and 0.17 ± 0.31%, respectively. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the percentage differences for D2cc volumes were -0.50 ± 0.51%, -0.16 ± 0.53% and -0.37 ± 1.21%, respectively. For Ir-192-based plans, the percentage difference in the D90 for HR-CTV was 0.54 ± 0.79%, while V100 was 0.24 ± 0.29%. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the doses to 2cc volume were 0.35 ± 1.06%, 0.99 ± 0.74% and 0.74 ± 1.92%, respectively. No significant differences were found in the dosimetric parameters calculated with ACE and TG-43.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ACE algorithm reduced doses to OARs and targets. However, ACE and TG-43 did not show significant differences in the dosimetric parameters of the target and OARs with both sources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"300-308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321785/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.100778\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.100778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:第43工作组(TG-43)的形式不考虑组织和施术者的异质性。本研究旨在比较基于模型的剂量计算算法(如高级塌陷锥体引擎(ACE))与 TG-43 剂量计算形式对宫颈癌患者剂量计算的影响。在 Oncentra 治疗计划系统(Elekta, Veenendaal, The Netherlands)中对靶体积和危险器官(OARs)进行了轮廓分析。所有患者都计划使用钴-60(Co-60)和铱-192(Ir-192)放射源,剂量为 21 Gy,分 3 次进行。这些计划采用 TG-43 形式和基于模型的剂量计算算法 ACE 进行计算。比较了基于 TG-43 和基于 ACE 的计划在靶区覆盖和 OAR 剂量方面的剂量学参数:结果:对于基于 Co-60 的计划,高风险临床靶体积(HR-CTV)的 D90 和 V100 值的百分比差异分别为 0.36 ± 0.43% 和 0.17 ± 0.31%。对于膀胱、直肠和乙状结肠,D2cc容积的百分比差异分别为-0.50 ± 0.51%、-0.16 ± 0.53%和-0.37 ± 1.21%。对于基于 Ir-192 的计划,HR-CTV 的 D90 百分比差异为 0.54 ± 0.79%,而 V100 百分比差异为 0.24 ± 0.29%。膀胱、直肠和乙状结肠的 2cc 容量剂量分别为 0.35 ± 1.06%、0.99 ± 0.74% 和 0.74 ± 1.92%。用 ACE 和 TG-43 计算的剂量学参数无明显差异:结论:ACE算法减少了OAR和目标的剂量。结论:ACE 算法减少了 OAR 和目标的剂量,但 ACE 和 TG-43 计算出的目标和 OAR 的剂量学参数与这两种放射源并无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effect of model-based dose-calculation algorithms in high dose rate brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma.

Background: Task Group 43 (TG-43) formalism does not consider the tissue and applicator heterogeneities. This study is to compare the effect of model-based dose calculation algorithms, like Advanced Collapsed Cone Engine (ACE), on dose calculation with the TG-43 dose calculation formalism in patients with cervical carcinoma.

Materials and methods: 20 patients of cervical carcinoma treated with a high dose rate of intracavitary brachytherapy were prospectively studied. The target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured in the Oncentra treatment planning system (Elekta, Veenendaal, The Netherlands). All patients were planned with cobalt-60 (Co-60) and iridium-192 (Ir-192) sources with doses of 21 Gy in 3 fractions. These plans were calculated with TG-43 formalism and a model-based dose calculation algorithm ACE. The dosimetric parameters of TG-43 and ACE-based plans were compared in terms of target coverage and OAR doses.

Results: For Co-60-based plans, the percentage differences in the D90 and V100 values for high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) were 0.36 ± 0.43% and 0.17 ± 0.31%, respectively. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the percentage differences for D2cc volumes were -0.50 ± 0.51%, -0.16 ± 0.53% and -0.37 ± 1.21%, respectively. For Ir-192-based plans, the percentage difference in the D90 for HR-CTV was 0.54 ± 0.79%, while V100 was 0.24 ± 0.29%. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the doses to 2cc volume were 0.35 ± 1.06%, 0.99 ± 0.74% and 0.74 ± 1.92%, respectively. No significant differences were found in the dosimetric parameters calculated with ACE and TG-43.

Conclusion: The ACE algorithm reduced doses to OARs and targets. However, ACE and TG-43 did not show significant differences in the dosimetric parameters of the target and OARs with both sources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
115
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is an interdisciplinary bimonthly journal, publishing original contributions in clinical oncology and radiotherapy, as well as in radiotherapy physics, techniques and radiotherapy equipment. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is a journal of the Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, the Czech Society of Radiation Oncology, the Hungarian Society for Radiation Oncology, the Slovenian Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Polish Study Group of Head and Neck Cancer, the Guild of Bulgarian Radiotherapists and the Greater Poland Cancer Centre, affiliated with the Spanish Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and the Portuguese Society of Radiotherapy - Oncology.
期刊最新文献
Prehabilitation approaches for gastrointestinal cancer surgery: a narrative review. Reirradiation of gliomas with hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy: efficacy and tolerance analysis at a single center. Tracing prostate cancer - the evolution of PET-CT applications. Treatment of oropharyngeal cancer during the COVID-19 lockdown - outcomes for patients treated during the pandemic. Can the reprogrammed cancer cells serve as an alternative source of (induced) cancer stem cells?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1