I. Ahmad, K. Chufal, C. P. Bhatt, A. Miller, R. Bajpai, R. Chowdhary, A. Pahuja, Akanksha Chhabra, M. Gairola
{"title":"放射治疗递送技术的选择是否会影响靶区描绘方案的选择?基于计划-质量的左乳腺癌分析","authors":"I. Ahmad, K. Chufal, C. P. Bhatt, A. Miller, R. Bajpai, R. Chowdhary, A. Pahuja, Akanksha Chhabra, M. Gairola","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1722428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction This study investigates the optimal target delineation protocol stratified by treatment planning technique in patients undergoing whole breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery. Materials and Methods Target delineation using Tangent (RTOG 0413 Whole Breast Irradiation Protocol), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and Radiation Therapy & Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines was performed on 10 randomly selected treatment planning computed tomography datasets of patients with left-sided breast cancer. An objective plan quality metric (PQM) scoring schema was defined and communicated to the medical physicist prior to commencement of treatment planning. Treatment planning was performed using field-in-field (FiF) intensity modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT), inverse IMRT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for each type of target. Two-way repeated measures, analysis of variance was utilized to compare the total PQM scores and dosimetric variables, stratified by treatment planning method. Results Total PQM score of plans for FiF, IMRT, and VMAT revealed that Tangent and ESTRO delineations were equivalent regardless of planning technique (Tangent vs. ESTRO for FiF, p = 0.099; Tangent vs. ESTRO for IMRT, p = 0.029; Tangent vs. ESTRO for VMAT, p = 0.438). Both delineation protocols were significantly superior to RTOG for all treatment planning techniques. Conclusion For all treatment planning techniques, ESTRO and Tangent delineation were equivalent and both achieved significantly higher scores than RTOG delineation.","PeriodicalId":31357,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Oncology","volume":"7 1","pages":"13 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1722428","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can the Choice of Radiotherapy Delivery Technique Influence Which Target Delineation Protocol to Use? A Plan-Quality-Based Analysis in Left Breast Cancer\",\"authors\":\"I. Ahmad, K. Chufal, C. P. Bhatt, A. Miller, R. Bajpai, R. Chowdhary, A. Pahuja, Akanksha Chhabra, M. Gairola\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0040-1722428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Introduction This study investigates the optimal target delineation protocol stratified by treatment planning technique in patients undergoing whole breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery. Materials and Methods Target delineation using Tangent (RTOG 0413 Whole Breast Irradiation Protocol), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and Radiation Therapy & Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines was performed on 10 randomly selected treatment planning computed tomography datasets of patients with left-sided breast cancer. An objective plan quality metric (PQM) scoring schema was defined and communicated to the medical physicist prior to commencement of treatment planning. Treatment planning was performed using field-in-field (FiF) intensity modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT), inverse IMRT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for each type of target. Two-way repeated measures, analysis of variance was utilized to compare the total PQM scores and dosimetric variables, stratified by treatment planning method. Results Total PQM score of plans for FiF, IMRT, and VMAT revealed that Tangent and ESTRO delineations were equivalent regardless of planning technique (Tangent vs. ESTRO for FiF, p = 0.099; Tangent vs. ESTRO for IMRT, p = 0.029; Tangent vs. ESTRO for VMAT, p = 0.438). Both delineation protocols were significantly superior to RTOG for all treatment planning techniques. Conclusion For all treatment planning techniques, ESTRO and Tangent delineation were equivalent and both achieved significantly higher scores than RTOG delineation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Oncology\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"13 - 21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1722428\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1722428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1722428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要简介本研究探讨保乳手术后全乳放疗患者采用治疗计划技术分层的最佳靶点划定方案。材料与方法采用正切(RTOG 0413全乳房照射方案)、欧洲放射与肿瘤学会(ESTRO)和放射治疗与肿瘤学会(RTOG)指南对随机选择的10例左侧乳腺癌患者的治疗计划计算机断层扫描数据集进行靶点划定。制定客观计划质量度量(PQM)评分方案,并在治疗计划开始前与医学物理学家沟通。针对每种类型的靶标,采用场内场(FiF)调强放疗技术(IMRT)、逆调强放疗技术(逆调强放疗技术)和体积调制弧线治疗(VMAT)进行治疗计划。采用双向重复测量、方差分析比较PQM总分和剂量学变量,采用治疗计划法分层。结果FiF、IMRT和VMAT计划的PQM总评分显示,无论计划技术如何,切线和ESTRO描绘都是等效的(FiF的切线与ESTRO, p = 0.099;切线与ESTRO的IMRT, p = 0.029;切线vs. ESTRO的VMAT, p = 0.438)。两种划定方案在所有治疗计划技术上都明显优于RTOG。结论对于所有的治疗计划技术,ESTRO和正切描绘是相同的,两者的得分都明显高于RTOG描绘。
Can the Choice of Radiotherapy Delivery Technique Influence Which Target Delineation Protocol to Use? A Plan-Quality-Based Analysis in Left Breast Cancer
Abstract Introduction This study investigates the optimal target delineation protocol stratified by treatment planning technique in patients undergoing whole breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery. Materials and Methods Target delineation using Tangent (RTOG 0413 Whole Breast Irradiation Protocol), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and Radiation Therapy & Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines was performed on 10 randomly selected treatment planning computed tomography datasets of patients with left-sided breast cancer. An objective plan quality metric (PQM) scoring schema was defined and communicated to the medical physicist prior to commencement of treatment planning. Treatment planning was performed using field-in-field (FiF) intensity modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT), inverse IMRT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for each type of target. Two-way repeated measures, analysis of variance was utilized to compare the total PQM scores and dosimetric variables, stratified by treatment planning method. Results Total PQM score of plans for FiF, IMRT, and VMAT revealed that Tangent and ESTRO delineations were equivalent regardless of planning technique (Tangent vs. ESTRO for FiF, p = 0.099; Tangent vs. ESTRO for IMRT, p = 0.029; Tangent vs. ESTRO for VMAT, p = 0.438). Both delineation protocols were significantly superior to RTOG for all treatment planning techniques. Conclusion For all treatment planning techniques, ESTRO and Tangent delineation were equivalent and both achieved significantly higher scores than RTOG delineation.