Impacts of Multileaf Collimators Leaf Width on Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Analysis of Two Commercial Elekta Devices

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Shichao Wang B.S.^a ; Youling Gong M.D. ; Ph.D.^b ; ^c ; ^{gongyouling@gmail.com"" rel=""nofollow} ; Qingfeng Xu M.S.^a ; Sen Bai Ph.D.^a ; You Lu M.D.^b ; ^c ; Qingfeng Jiang^a ; Nianyong Chen M.D. ; Ph.D.^d
• 关键词：Multileaf collimators ; Leaf width ; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy ; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
• 刊名：Medical Dosimetry
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：Summer 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：36
• 期：2
• 页码：153-159
• 全文大小：1199 K

文摘

We compared the impacts of multileaf collimator (MLC) widths (standard MLC width of 10 mm [SMLC] and micro-MLC width of 4 mm [MMLC]) on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Ten patients with NPC were recruited in this study. In each patient's case, plans were generated with the same machine setup parameter and optimizing methods in a treatment planning system according to 2 commercial Elekta MLC devices. All of the parameters were collected from dose-volume histograms of paired plans and evaluated. The average conformity index (CI) and homogeneous index (HI) for the planning gross target volume in IMRT plans with MMLC were 0.790 ± 0.036 and 1.062 ± 0.011, respectively. Data in plans with SMLC were 0.754 ± 0.038 and 1.070 ± 0.010, respectively. The differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Compared with CI and HI for planning target volume in paired plans, data with MMLC obviously were better than those with SMLC (CI: 0.858 ± 0.026 vs. 0.850 ± 0.021, p < 0.05; and HI: 1.185 ± 0.011 vs. 1.195 ± 0.011, p < 0.05). However, there was no statistical significance between evaluated parameters (Dmean, Dmax, D₅, gEUD, or NTCP) for organs at risk (OARs) in the 2 paired IMRT plans. According to these two kinds of Elekta MLC devices, IMRT plans with the MMLC have significant advantages in dose coverage for the targets, with more efficiency in treatment for NPC but fail to improve dose sparing of the OARs.