Effect of different radiation field designs on the dose of treating middle and lower esophageal cancer in intensity modulated radiotherapy
10.3969/j.issn.1672-8270.2025.01.001
- VernacularTitle:调强放射治疗中不同射野设计对中下段食管癌治疗的剂量影响研究
- Author:
Hao WANG
1
;
Qi DING
;
Feng GUO
;
Yantao GONG
;
Genxiang CHEN
;
Ya CHE
;
Yinghong REN
;
Yunyi YANG
;
Yi LI
Author Information
1. 商洛市中心医院肿瘤三病区 商洛 726000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Different radiation field distribution plans;
Middle and lower esophageal cancer:Intensity modulated radiotherapy program;
Dosiology
- From:
China Medical Equipment
2025;22(1):2-6,57
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To design two kinds of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans with different radiation field distributions,and to compare the dose differences of that at the dose of target region and organs at risk (OAR) for middle and lower esophageal cancer,so as to provide a reference for the design of IMRT plan. Methods:The data of 17 patients with middle and lower esophageal cancer who received IMRT at Shangluo Central Hospital from November 2022 to May 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. IMRT plans with different radiation fields for Plan 1 and Plan 2 were designed for each patient. The angles of radiation field for Plan 1 were 0°,80°,120°,160° and 200°,and those for Plan 2 were 30°,130°,180°,230° and 330°,respectively. The prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was 60 Gy/30 F. The differences in dosimetric parameters between the two plans were compared. Results:There were no statistically significant differences in the dose parameters of 2％,98％,50％ target dose (D2％,D98％,D50％),homogeneity index (HI),conformity index (CI) and monitor unit between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in V5 of dual lungs,the mean dose (Dmean) of heart,and the maximum dose (Dmax) of spinal-cord between two groups (P>0.05). The volume percentage (V10,V20,V30) of dual lungs received radiation doses of 10,20 and 30 Gy,and the mean dose (Vmean) of lung in the Plan1 group reduced respectively 7.44％,21.16％,10.09％ and 5.31％ than those in the Plan2 group,and the differences of them were statistically significant (t=-5.845,-7.729,-2.247,-3.960,P<0.05). Heart V10 and V20 in the Plan1 group decreased respectively by 7.23％ and 5.78％,with statistical significance (t=-4.376,-3.523,P<0.01),while V30 and V40 of Plan 1 increased respectively by 2.7％ and 4.92％,without statistical significance (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in heart Dmean between the Plan1 group and the Plan2 group (P>0.05). Conclusion:Both two methods of distribution field can meet the clinical requirements,and Plan1 has more advantages in protecting organs at risk under the premise of meeting the requirements of target region.
