| 蔡佳桓,彭逊,陆佳扬.比较两种固定装置对食管癌放疗病人摆位精度的影响[J].安徽医药,2026,30(1):145-148. |
| 比较两种固定装置对食管癌放疗病人摆位精度的影响 |
| The impact of two immobilization devices on the setup accuracy of patients undergoing radiotherapy for esophageal cancer |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2026.01.029 |
| 中文关键词: 食管肿瘤 放射疗法，调强适形 摆位 热塑膜 真空袋 |
| 英文关键词: Esophageal neoplasms Radiotherapy,intensity-modulated Positioning Thermoplastic mask Vacuum bag |
| 基金项目:广东省医学科研项目( A2022218)；广东省科技创新战略专项资金(纵向协同管理方向)项目［粤财教( 2018)157］ |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 384 |
| 全文下载次数: 153 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的比较两种不同的固定装置对中上段食管癌放疗病人摆位精度的影响。方法选择 2016年 1月至 2023年 10月在汕头大学医学院附属肿瘤医院接受调强放疗的上段和中段食管癌病人各 60例，分为热塑膜组和真空袋组，每组 30例。通过锥形束 CT(CBCT)扫描比较两组病人在左右( X轴)、头脚( Y轴)和前后( Z轴)方向的摆位误差。结果 CBCT影像校正前，上段食管癌热塑膜组和真空袋组在 X轴方向的摆位误差分别为 1.6(0.6，2.7)mm和 1.6(0.9，2.9)mm，差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)在 Y轴方向的摆位误差分别为 1.5(0.7，2.5)mm和 2.6(1.1，4.0)mm，在 Z轴方向的摆位误差分别为 0.8(0.4，1.3)mm和2.3(1.2，而，4.0)mm，热塑膜组均小于真空袋组( P<0.05)；中段食管癌热塑膜组和真空袋组在 X轴方向的摆位误差分别为 1.6(0.8，3.0)mm和 1.3(0.5，2.2)mm，热塑膜组大于真空袋组( P<0.05)而在 Y轴方向的摆位误差分别为 1.9(1.0，2.9)mm和 2.8(0.7，4.6)mm，在 Z轴方向的摆位误差分别为 1.1(0.5，1.6)mm和 2.0(1.5)mm，热塑膜组均小于真空袋组( P<0.05)。 CBCT影像校正后，中上.0，3，段食管癌热塑膜组和真空袋组在 X轴、 Y轴、 Z轴方向的摆位误差均差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)。结论中上段食管癌放疗使用热塑膜固定装置在 Y轴与 Z轴方向的摆位精度优于真空袋，而在 X轴方向的摆位精度略差于真空袋， CBCT影像校正后两装置效果相当。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the impact of two different immobilization devices on the setup accuracy of patients with middleand upper esophageal cancer undergoing radiotherapy.Methods Sixty patients with upper esophageal cancer and sixty patients with middle esophageal cancer receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Shantou University MedicalCollege from January 2016 to October 2023 were selected and divided into thermoplastic mask group and vacuum bag group, with thirtypatients in each group. Setup errors in the left-right (X-axis), cranio-caudal (Y-axis) and anterior-posterior (Z-axis) directions were com-pared using cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans.Results Before correction, the setup errors of the upper esophageal cancer for the thermo-plastic mask group and the vacuum bag group in the X-axis direction were 1.6 (0.6, 2.7) mm and 1.6 (0.9, 2.9) mm, respectively, andthere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05), while the setup errors in the Y-axis direction were 1.5 (0.7, 2.5) mm and 2.6 (1.1, 4.0) mm, and in the Z-axis direction were 0.8 (0.4, 1.3) mm and 2.3 (1.2, 4.0) mm, respectively, with thethermoplastic mask group showing significantly smaller errors compared to the vacuum bag group (P < 0.05). For middle esophageal cancer, the setup error in the X-axis direction for the thermoplastic mask group and the vacuum bag group were 1.6 (0.8, 3.0) mm and1.3 (0.5, 2.2) mm, respectively, with the thermoplastic mask group showing a significantly larger error than the vacuum bag group (P < 0.05), while the setup errors in the Y-axis direction were 1.9 (1.0, 2.9) mm and 2.8 (0.7, 4.6) mm, and in the Z-axis direction were 1.1 (0.5, 1.6) mm and 2.0 (1.0, 3.5) mm, with the thermoplastic mask group having statistically smaller errors than the vacuum bag group(P < 0.05). After correction, there were no significant differences in the setup errors of the middle and upper esophageal cancer betweenthe thermoplastic mask and vacuum bag groups in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions (P>0.05).Conclusions The setup accuracy of the thermoplastic mask immobilization device is better than that of the vacuum bag in the Y-axis and Z-axis directions, but slightly worse than that of the vacuum bag in the X-axis direction in the radiotherapy for middle and upper esophageal cancer. After CBCT im-age correction, the effectiveness of the two devices is similar. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
