|
Objective: To compare nasopharyngeal conventional design methods and three different wild corner rack arrangement of IMRT plans difference between the oral dose, can reduce the oral dose of trying to figure out a treatment plan design. Materials and Methods: April 2009 to June 2009 at the Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, 10 cases of primary NPC patients received seven full weeks, etc. distributed wild wild IMRT treatment, the rack angle of 0 °, 50 °, 100 °, 150 °, 210 °, 250 °, 310 ° (Applied group). In the same optimization parameters, changing the frame to include a 180 ° angle of the entire circumference of the radiation field aliquots treated (30 °, 80 °, 130 °, 180 °, 230 °, 280 °, 330 °) of the program (Opposed group), and a ray incident on the southern hemisphere way through the rear (80 °, 110 °, 140 °, 180 °, 210 °, 240 °, 280 °) treatment plans (South group), and the design of the same target Let the corresponding conventional wild scheme (Routine group), univariate analysis of variance between groups paired test (LSD). Results: General Settings wild group (Routine group) with the rest three IMRT group (Applied group, Opposed group, South group), between the PTVnx dose parameters for each group were significantly different (P lt; 0.05); 3 个IMRT group (Applied group, Opposed group, South group), between the dose parameters of each group without any significant difference. General Settings wild group and three in the CI between the IMRT group, there were significant differences (P lt; 0.001); 3 个 CI IMRT group plans no significant difference between the groups (P values ??are 0.408,0.625 and 0.732). General Settings wild group (Routine group) and the remaining three IMRT group (Applied group, Opposed group, South group) in the oral Min Dose and Mean Dose there were significant differences between conventional wild group set lower; dose volume percentage comparison, General Settings wild group V30, V35, V40 with IMRT in each group were significantly different; the V45 on the General Settings wild group Opposed group and Applied groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05), the V55 on the General Settings Wild group and South group were significantly different; V60 on the General Settings wild group and three IMRT groups, there were significant differences; 3 IMRT between designs, Applied group Opposed group Min Dose, V30 exists significant difference; Applied V35 group and South group, there was significant difference; the rest of the set of data compared to each other does not appear significantly different. CONCLUSION: Conventional IMRT plan designed field programs and between PTVnx and oral doses there are differences on the three IMRT designs are basically the same tumor target dose. In conventional oral dose distribution program designed field IMRT plans to accept higher than the low-dose irradiation 25Gy volume lower than 55Gy receiving high doses of radiation higher volume, combined with others reported in the literature, suggesting that radioactive oral mucositis may occur with high local dose-related. Three kinds of IMRT plan provided no significant difference between wild.
|