【摘要】 目的 研究Monaco治疗计划系统中不同参数设置对容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)计划质量的影响，得出更合理的治疗计划参数设置以提高VMAT治疗质量。 方法 2010年1-5月间治疗3例患者，为食管癌、宫颈癌和鼻咽癌各1例，分别设置不同的计划参数进行容积旋转调强计划优化，通过多种评估指标比较各VMAT计划质量的差异，得出临床所需的MSC、MSS、SSF、Sm、MMS和MDR共6个治疗计划参数对VMAT治疗质量的影响。 结果 MSC、MSS和SSF的3个参数对VMAT治疗质量不产生影响，有影响的Sm、MMS和MDR参数中，随着Sm和MMS值的增大，VMAT计划的剂量分布逐渐变差，但控制点数、机器跳数和照射时间均逐渐减小；随着MDR值增大，VMAT治疗的剂量分布先逐渐变差后不变，控制点数和机器跳数均是先增大后不变，而照射时间是先减小后不变。 结论 Sm、MMS和MDR 3个参数对VMAT计划质量有较大影响，对不同的患者，设置合适的Sm、MMS和MDR值对提高计划质量非常重要。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the impacts of parameter settings on the quality of plans for the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with Monaco treatment planning system. Methods Three patients who underwent VMAT from January to May 2010 were selected. The planning optimizations were processed by setting different planning parameters, including MSC, MSS, SSF, Sm, MMS and MDR, respectively. Then the quality of each plan with a certain set of parameters was evaluated by various evaluation indexes. The differences of quality among different plans were analyzed by comparing these indexes. Results There was no influence on the quality of VMAT planning for the parameter MSC, MSS and SSF to be set with different values. However, the other three parameters, MSC, MSS and SSF , affected the quality of VMAT planning with different values. Along with the aggrandizement of Sm and MMS value, the dose distribution of VMAT plans gradually became bad, while the number of control points, machine monitor units and irradiation time were gradually reduced. And along with the aggrandizement of MDR value, the dose distribution of VMAT plans became bad gradually until a constant state was reached, and both the number of control points and machine monitor units increased at first and then kept constant, while irradiation time decreased at first and then kept constant. Conclusion The selections of parameter Sm, MMS and MDR impact the quality of VMAT planning greatly. It is very important to set the suitable value of Sm, MMS and MDR to get the best planning quality for patients with different complexity.
ObjectiveTo compare the static intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans using different beams sets and segments number, and find the better static IMRT plan sets on beams and segments in gastric surgical adjuvant radiotherapy.MethodsFifteen patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer between February 1st and August 30th, 2013 were chosen as subjects through random sampling. Based on the 5 beams static IMRT plans already used in clinical practice, four different static IMRT plans used diverse beams sets for each patient were designed in the same treatment planning system (Pinnacle 9.2). The beams sets of static IMRT plans were as follows: 7 coplanar equal beams; 5 coplanar equal beams; 4 coplanar beams of 310, 20, 90 and 180°; 3 coplanar beams of 310, 65 and 180°. Sufficient segments 65 was set as the max segments number in order to compare the plans’ difference just resulting from beams. In the second step, the max segments number was changed from 65 to 45 and 25 to design two different static IMRT plans for the 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans. The dosimetric parameters were compared for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). The monitor units and treatment times of the different static IMRT plans were also evaluated.ResultsWhen the max segments number was set to 65, the 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans were a little better on PTV conformability than the 5 coplanar beams static IMRT plans used in clinical practice (0.74±0.04 vs. 0.73±0.05, P<0.01). Meanwhile, better OARs dose sparing especially for liver and kidneys were gained by the 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans, for example, the percent volume gained 30 Gy for liver [(22.71±6.10)%vs. (24.03±6.84)%, P<0.01] and the percent volume gained 20 Gy for the right kidney [(14.97±6.72)%vs. (19.41±6.14)%, P<0.01]. The PTV conformability of the 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans reduced as the max segments number became smaller (0.74±0.04vs. 0.73±0.04 vs. 0.71±0.04, P<0.05). However, they were still acceptable in clinical practice. And the better dose sparing for liver and kidneys were retained. The average reductions of 1.8 and 4.3 minutes on the irradiation time were get by the 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans with the max segments number 45 and 25 compared to that with the max segments number 65 [(494.66±26.79)vs. (384.26±14.99) vs. (235.00±9.21) s, P<0.01]. And the raises of treatment efficiency were 22.3% and 52.4%, respectively (P<0.05).ConclusionsThe 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans with fewer segments could ensure plan quality, and protect the OARs better in the meanwhile, especially for liver and kidneys. The treatment time is reduced as well. The 4 coplanar beams static IMRT plans could improve the treatment efficiency.