论文部分内容阅读
目的分析前列腺癌患者调强放疗计划设计时PBC和AAA算法计算得到的剂量学参数差异。方法对13例术后接受调强放射治疗的前列腺癌患者进行调强放疗计划设计时,分别用Eclipse Version 8.10治疗计划系统提供的PBC和AAA算法进行剂量计算并用二维电离室矩阵进行验证测量,比较两种算法获得的HI、CI、PTVDP、PTVmean、直肠和膀胱V50等参数差异,并将二维电离室矩阵测量的剂量分布与两种算法的计算结果分别进行比较获得γ通过率、单次照射时的DDmax及DDmean等参数差异。结果两种算法得到的靶区HI、CI、PTVDP、PTVmean平均相差分别为0.003、0.004、2.2%、10 cGy,直肠和膀胱V50值平均差异分别为0.3%和1.3%。γ通过率、DDmax及DDmean平均差异分别为0.9%、1.2%(2.4 cGy)和0.85%(1.7 cGy)。两种算法所获得的剂量学参数差异不大。结论对前列腺癌患者进行调强放疗计划设计时,PBC和AAA两种算法均可使用。
Objective To analyze the difference of dosimetry parameters calculated by PBC and AAA algorithm in the design of IMRT in patients with prostate cancer. Methods Thirteen patients with ITP treated with IMRT were dose-calculated with PBC and AAA algorithms provided by the Eclipse Version 8.10 treatment planning system and validated with a two-dimensional ionization chamber matrix. The differences of HI, CI, PTVDP, PTVmean, rectal and bladder V50 obtained by the two algorithms were compared and the dose distribution measured by the two-dimensional ionization chamber matrix was compared with the calculated results of the two algorithms respectively to obtain γ pass rate, Differences in parameters such as DDmax and DDmean during irradiation. Results The average difference of HI, CI, PTVDP and PTVmean between the two algorithms were 0.003,0.004,2.2% and 10 cGy, respectively. The mean difference of V50 between rectum and bladder was 0.3% and 1.3% respectively. The average γ-passage rate, DDmax and DDmean were 0.9%, 1.2% (2.4 cGy) and 0.85% (1.7 cGy), respectively. The dosimetry parameters obtained by the two algorithms did not differ significantly. Conclusions Both PBC and AAA algorithms are available for IMRT planning in patients with prostate cancer.