应用适形规划技术对癌症患者术后不同剂量计算算法的剂量测定比较。

IF 0.7 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Medical Physics Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-29 DOI:10.4103/jmp.jmp_28_23
Garima Gaur, Vinod Kumar Dangwal, Raja Paramjeet Singh Banipal, Ranjit Singh, Gurpreet Kaur, Romikant Grover, Sheetal Sachdeva, Manraj Singh Kang, Simrandeep Singh, Pardeep Garg, Baltej Singh
{"title":"应用适形规划技术对癌症患者术后不同剂量计算算法的剂量测定比较。","authors":"Garima Gaur,&nbsp;Vinod Kumar Dangwal,&nbsp;Raja Paramjeet Singh Banipal,&nbsp;Ranjit Singh,&nbsp;Gurpreet Kaur,&nbsp;Romikant Grover,&nbsp;Sheetal Sachdeva,&nbsp;Manraj Singh Kang,&nbsp;Simrandeep Singh,&nbsp;Pardeep Garg,&nbsp;Baltej Singh","doi":"10.4103/jmp.jmp_28_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of the current study was to compare three different dose-calculating algorithms, i.e., superposition (SP), fast SP (FSP), and convolution (CV), for breast cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and field-in-Field forward plan IMRT (FiF-FP-IMRT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The current retrospective study involved 100 postmastectomy breast cancer patients who were given radiotherapy using IMRT and FiF-FP-IMRT planning techniques. All the initially SP-calculated plans were recalculated with the same monitor units for FSP and CV algorithm without change in any of the other planning parameters. The isodose distribution and various plan evaluating parameters, for example, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, and uniformity index target volume and normal structure doses were compared and analyzed for all the different algorithm calculated plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the IMRT plans, all the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters showed a significant difference between all the three different algorithms with <i>P</i> < 0.05. In the FiF-FP-IMRT plans, CV algorithm showed a significant difference in most of the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters. Among quality indexes, only CI showed a significant difference between all the algorithms in both the planning techniques. R<sub>50</sub> showed a significant difference with the CV algorithm in both the planning techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The change in the dose calculation algorithm resulted in dosimetric changes which must be evaluated by the medical physicists and oncologists while evaluating treatment plans. In the current study with breast patients, the results obtained for target and normal structure doses using the CV algorithm are overestimated as compared to SP and FSP algorithms, producing variable results in air and bony normal structures. However, the ipsilateral lung V<sub>5</sub> parameter and the ipsilateral humeral head mean dose were found to be underestimated by the CV algorithm as compared to the SP and FSP algorithm in both the planning techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":51719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Physics","volume":"48 2","pages":"136-145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f5/7c/JMP-48-136.PMC10419741.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric Comparison of Different Dose Calculation Algorithms in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients Using Conformal Planning Techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Garima Gaur,&nbsp;Vinod Kumar Dangwal,&nbsp;Raja Paramjeet Singh Banipal,&nbsp;Ranjit Singh,&nbsp;Gurpreet Kaur,&nbsp;Romikant Grover,&nbsp;Sheetal Sachdeva,&nbsp;Manraj Singh Kang,&nbsp;Simrandeep Singh,&nbsp;Pardeep Garg,&nbsp;Baltej Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmp.jmp_28_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of the current study was to compare three different dose-calculating algorithms, i.e., superposition (SP), fast SP (FSP), and convolution (CV), for breast cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and field-in-Field forward plan IMRT (FiF-FP-IMRT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The current retrospective study involved 100 postmastectomy breast cancer patients who were given radiotherapy using IMRT and FiF-FP-IMRT planning techniques. All the initially SP-calculated plans were recalculated with the same monitor units for FSP and CV algorithm without change in any of the other planning parameters. The isodose distribution and various plan evaluating parameters, for example, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, and uniformity index target volume and normal structure doses were compared and analyzed for all the different algorithm calculated plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the IMRT plans, all the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters showed a significant difference between all the three different algorithms with <i>P</i> < 0.05. In the FiF-FP-IMRT plans, CV algorithm showed a significant difference in most of the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters. Among quality indexes, only CI showed a significant difference between all the algorithms in both the planning techniques. R<sub>50</sub> showed a significant difference with the CV algorithm in both the planning techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The change in the dose calculation algorithm resulted in dosimetric changes which must be evaluated by the medical physicists and oncologists while evaluating treatment plans. In the current study with breast patients, the results obtained for target and normal structure doses using the CV algorithm are overestimated as compared to SP and FSP algorithms, producing variable results in air and bony normal structures. However, the ipsilateral lung V<sub>5</sub> parameter and the ipsilateral humeral head mean dose were found to be underestimated by the CV algorithm as compared to the SP and FSP algorithm in both the planning techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"48 2\",\"pages\":\"136-145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f5/7c/JMP-48-136.PMC10419741.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_28_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_28_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是比较三种不同的剂量计算算法,即叠加(SP)、快速SP(FSP)和卷积(CV),对癌症患者采用强度调制放疗(IMRT)和场内正向计划IMRT(FiF-FP-IMRT)进行治疗。使用FSP和CV算法的相同监测单元重新计算所有最初SP计算的计划,而不改变任何其他计划参数。对所有不同算法计算的计划的等剂量分布和各种计划评估参数,例如一致性指数(CI)、均匀性指数和均匀性指数目标体积和正常结构剂量进行了比较和分析。结果:在IMRT方案中,所有目标和正常结构剂量-体积参数在三种不同算法之间均显示出显著差异,P<0.05。在FiF-FP IMRT计划中,CV算法在大多数目标和正常结构剂量体积参数方面显示出显著差异。在质量指标中,只有CI在两种规划技术中显示出所有算法之间的显著差异。R50在两种规划技术上都与CV算法有显著差异。结论:剂量计算算法的变化导致了剂量测量的变化,医学物理学家和肿瘤学家在评估治疗计划时必须对其进行评估。在目前对乳腺患者的研究中,与SP和FSP算法相比,使用CV算法获得的目标和正常结构剂量的结果被高估了,在空气和骨骼正常结构中产生了不同的结果。然而,在两种规划技术中,与SP和FSP算法相比,CV算法低估了同侧肺V5参数和同侧肱骨头平均剂量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Dosimetric Comparison of Different Dose Calculation Algorithms in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients Using Conformal Planning Techniques.

Background: The aim of the current study was to compare three different dose-calculating algorithms, i.e., superposition (SP), fast SP (FSP), and convolution (CV), for breast cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and field-in-Field forward plan IMRT (FiF-FP-IMRT).

Materials and methods: The current retrospective study involved 100 postmastectomy breast cancer patients who were given radiotherapy using IMRT and FiF-FP-IMRT planning techniques. All the initially SP-calculated plans were recalculated with the same monitor units for FSP and CV algorithm without change in any of the other planning parameters. The isodose distribution and various plan evaluating parameters, for example, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, and uniformity index target volume and normal structure doses were compared and analyzed for all the different algorithm calculated plans.

Results: In the IMRT plans, all the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters showed a significant difference between all the three different algorithms with P < 0.05. In the FiF-FP-IMRT plans, CV algorithm showed a significant difference in most of the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters. Among quality indexes, only CI showed a significant difference between all the algorithms in both the planning techniques. R50 showed a significant difference with the CV algorithm in both the planning techniques.

Conclusion: The change in the dose calculation algorithm resulted in dosimetric changes which must be evaluated by the medical physicists and oncologists while evaluating treatment plans. In the current study with breast patients, the results obtained for target and normal structure doses using the CV algorithm are overestimated as compared to SP and FSP algorithms, producing variable results in air and bony normal structures. However, the ipsilateral lung V5 parameter and the ipsilateral humeral head mean dose were found to be underestimated by the CV algorithm as compared to the SP and FSP algorithm in both the planning techniques.

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
Journal of Medical Physics
Journal of Medical Physics RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
55
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS is the official journal of Association of Medical Physicists of India (AMPI). The association has been bringing out a quarterly publication since 1976. Till the end of 1993, it was known as Medical Physics Bulletin, which then became Journal of Medical Physics. The main objective of the Journal is to serve as a vehicle of communication to highlight all aspects of the practice of medical radiation physics. The areas covered include all aspects of the application of radiation physics to biological sciences, radiotherapy, radiodiagnosis, nuclear medicine, dosimetry and radiation protection. Papers / manuscripts dealing with the aspects of physics related to cancer therapy / radiobiology also fall within the scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
A Segmentation-based Automated Calculation of Patient Size and Size-specific Dose Estimates in Pediatric Computed Tomography Scans. A Study on Radiation Level at the Treatment Plane Due to Induced Activity in Linear Accelerator Head. Advancements and Applications of Three-dimensional Printing Technology in Surgery. Agar-based Phantom for Evaluating Targeting of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Systems for Breast Ablation. An Analysis of Radiotherapy Machine Requirements in India: Impact of the Pandemic and Regional Disparities.
×
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