鼻咽癌调强放疗与常规放疗的疗效及不良反应比较

[目的]比较鼻咽癌患者调强放疗（IMRT）与常规放疗的疗效及不良反应。[方法]将54例鼻咽癌患者随机分为两组,其中调强组28例,常规组26例。比较两组放疗的疗效及不良反应。[结果]调强组总缓解率（CR＋PR）为89.3%,高于常规组的73.1%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;两组的3年总生存率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,但调强组的3年局部控制率高于常规组,3年局部复发率低于常规组,组间差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;调强组患者口干症发生率和急性皮肤反应发生率显著降低（P〈0.05）。[结论]IMRT治疗鼻咽癌,近期效果良好,能够提高局部控制率,降低复发率和不良反应的发生。     

鼻咽癌颅底骨质破坏颅底补量的临床研究

目的 探讨鼻咽癌颅底骨质破坏常规放疗后是否需要颅底补量及其方式、时机,以及颅底补量的方式、时机分别与鼻咽癌的局部控制率、生存率的关系。方法 回顾性分析2003年7月至2005年6月经病理组织学确诊且鼻咽MRI证实有颅底侵犯的201例局部晚期鼻咽癌患者的临床资料。常规放疗66～70Gy后,21例患者颅底未予补量（A组）,97例患者常规颅底补量（B组）,54例患者适形补量（C组）,29例患者常规放疗2周后适形补量（D组）。169例患者接受以顺铂为基础的新辅助化疗或同期化疗。结果 A、B、C、D组的1年局部控制率分别为96.8％、97.9％、100.0％和100.0％（P=0.688）,3年局部控制率分别为80.6％、91.5％、96.4％和78.3％（P=0.117）,5年局部控制率分别为77.4％、83.0％、92.9％和78.3％（P=0.394）;1年生存率均为100.0％,3年生存率分别为83.9％、93.6％、92.9％和100.0％（P=0.167）,5年生存率分别为29.0％、21.3％、57.1％和52.2％（P=0.049）;5年放射性脑病的发生率分别为25.8％、27.7％、28.6％和25.4％（P=0.789）。结论 颅底骨质破坏的鼻咽癌患者常规根治性放疗后给予颅底适形补量有可能提高5年生存率,且放射性脑病的发生并未因此增加。     

鼻咽癌常规放疗与调强放疗远期并发症及疗效的对比分析

目的比较鼻咽癌常规放疗与调强放疗的远期并发症及疗效.方法将160例鼻咽癌患者分为常规放疗组和调强放疗组,回顾性分析两组患者治疗后远期并发症发生情况及生存情况.结果调强放疗组远期口干、颈部纤维化和放射性脑病发生率明显低于常规放疗组,差异具有显著性（P〈0.05）;两组患者远期张口受限、放射性龋齿和听力下降发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;两组1～3年生存率比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;调强放疗组4～7年生存率均明显高于常规放疗组,差异具有显著性（P〈0.05）.结论调强放疗治疗鼻咽癌远期并发症发生率低于常规放疗,远期生存率高于常规放疗,远期疗效优于常规放疗.     

鼻咽癌调强放疗中再程计划保护腮腺对口干燥症影响的临床研究

摘 要：［目的］ 研究鼻咽癌调强放疗中再程计划改野对减轻腮腺损伤,降低口干燥症发生率的影响。［方法］ 入组117例拟行调强放疗的鼻咽癌患者,分单次计划放疗组（46例）和再程计划放疗组（71例）。对两组靶区受照射剂量和体积、双侧腮腺受照射剂量和体积、4年局部控制率和4年生存率进行比较。［结果］ 两组靶区受照射剂量及体积变化差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,但再程计划放疗组双侧腮腺受照射剂量和体积均较单次计划放疗组显著降低（P＜0.05）。再程计划放疗组口干燥症严重程度较单次计划放疗组低（P=0.015）。再程计划放疗组和单次计划放疗组的4年局部控制率分别为94.4%和82.6%（P=0.046）,4年总生存率分别为84.5%和80.4%（P=0.573）。［结论］ 鼻咽癌调强放疗中再程计划改野模式可减轻腮腺损伤,降低口干燥症的发生。     

调强放疗同期化疗治疗局部中晚期鼻咽癌

目的:探讨调强放疗联合同期化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌的疗效。方法:选择2009年1月至2010年12月我院收治的107例鼻咽癌患者,按照随机数字表法将其分为观察组和对照组,其中观察组55例、对照组52例。两组患者均采取相同的化疗方案,观察组患者联合调强放疗,对照组则采取常规放疗,比较两组患者临床疗效及不良反应。结果:观察组治疗总有效率为94.54%（52/55）,对照组治疗总有效率为75.00%（39/52）,P＜0.05。观察组急性毒性反应发生率为41.82%（23/55）,对照组急性毒性反应发生率为71.15%（37/52）,P＜0.05。观察组患者远期不良反应发生率为20.00%（11/55）,对照组患者远期不良反应发生率为38.46%（20/52）,P＜0.05。观察组患者3年生存率为76.36%,对照组患者3年生存率为71.54%（P＞0.05）。观察组患者5年生存率为65.45%,对照组患者5年生存率为40.38%（P＜0.05）。观察组患者5年累积复发率为10.91%,对照组患者5年累积复发率为26.92%（P＜0.05）。观察组患者5年无远处转移生存率为85.45%,对照组患者5年无远处转移生存率为67.31%（P＜0.05）。结论:调强放疗同期化疗治疗局部中晚期鼻咽癌能够显著提高患者临床疗效、减少不良反应发生率,值得临床进一步观察研究。     

周剂量紫杉醇对局部晚期食管癌的放疗增敏作用

目的探讨周剂量紫杉醇对局部晚期食管癌的放疗增敏作用。方法将44例不宜手术的局部晚期食管癌患者随机分为放疗增敏组和单纯放疗组,每组22例。2组放疗方法相同,均采用常规设野,常规分割外照射,总剂量60—66Gy。放疗增敏组在放疗同期每周接受1次紫杉醇（40mg·m-2）化疗,连用6周。结果44例患者均可评价疗效,放疗增敏组与单纯放疗组有效率分别为86．4％和63．6％（P〈0．05）;1a局部控制率分别为77．3％和50．0％（P〈0．05）;1a无复发生存率分别为72．7％和45．5％（P〈0．05）;1a生存率分别为81．8％和54．5％（P〈0．05）。2组毒副反应相似,患者均可耐受。结论周剂量紫杉醇对局部晚期食管癌放疗具有明显的增敏作用,能提高患者的局部控制率和生存率,且毒副反应未明显增加。     

联合放化疗治疗晚期鼻咽癌的临床研究

目的 比较放、化疗与单纯放射治疗鼻咽癌的生存率、局部控制率、远处转移发生率和毒副反应。方法 从1991年4月至1993年10月。126例N2、N3期鼻咽癌患者随机分入放、化疗组和常规放疗组。放、化疗组放疗前、中及（或）放疗后各用PDD＋5－Fu化疗一个疗程,化疗方案为PDD20mg/m^2,1至5天;5－Fu500mg/m^21至5天;两组放疗方法相同,全部病例用8MV光子线及^60CO外照射,鼻咽部剂量65Gy-70Gy/6.5周－7周。颈淋巴结转移灶剂量65Gy-70Gy/6.5周－周,颈淋 地预防剂量50Gy/5周。结果 放、化疗组和单放组鼻咽肿瘤完全消退率分别为93.6％和85.7％（P＞0.05）,颈部转移淋巴结完全消退率分别为84.1％和57.1％（P＜0.05）;两组3年生存率分别为68.3％和52.4％（P＞0.05）;N2期鼻咽癌患者3年生存率分别为75.5％和58.7％（P＞0.05）,N3期鼻咽癌患者3年生存率分别为50.0％和35.3％（P＞0.05）;3年鼻咽部肿瘤控制率两组分别为71.4％和57.1％（P＜0.05),颈转移淋巴结控制率分别为69.8%和52.3％（P＜0.05）;化疗组远处转移发生率为20.6％,单放组为39.7％（P＜0.05）。放、化疗组急性毒副反应较单放组严重且出现早,经对症治疗后,绝大部分患者能按计划完成治疗。结论 对N2、N3期鼻咽癌行放、化疗联合有助于提高中控制率和减少远处转移。     

常规与后程超分割放疗治疗食管癌的疗效分析

[目的]对常规放疗和后程超分割放疗治疗食管癌的临床疗效进行分析。[方法]将72例食管癌患者分成两组,34例常规组患者采取常规放疗方案,38例观察组患者采取后程超分割放疗方案,治疗结束后随访3年,观察并比较两组的局部控制率、生存率和不良反应。[结果]观察并组治疗后1、2和3年的局部控制率分别为78.95%、65.79%和47.37%,优于常规组（P〈0.05）;观察组治疗后1、2和3年的生存率分别为73.68%、55.26%和39.47%,亦显著优于常规组（P〈0.05）;两组治疗后不良反应比较无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。[结论]后程超分割放疗治疗食管癌的临床疗效显著,提高了局部控制率和生存率,对食管黏膜和肺组织的损伤程度不大,值得临床推广应用。     

133例Ⅲ期鼻咽癌调强放疗的疗效及不良反应分析

背景与目的:调强放疗(intensity-modulated radiation therapy,IMRT)是最大限度提高肿瘤靶区照射剂量的同时明显减少周围正常组织的剂量的放疗技术,调强放疗联合化疗治疗局部晚期鼻咽癌取得了较好的疗效,如何在此基础上进一步提高疗效成为肿瘤学者共同关注的话题.鼻咽癌分期不同,疗效不同,同一分期各亚组间疗效有无差别,尚有待研究.通过回顾性分析临床Ⅲ期鼻咽癌各亚组间调强放疗联合化疗的疗效,探讨进一步提高疗效的方法.方法:对我院2003年1月-2006年6月期间收治的133例临床Ⅲ期鼻咽癌患者进行分析,根据AJCC 2002分期,其中T3N0 7例(5.3％),T3N1 39例(29.3％),T2N2 48例(36.1％),T3N2 39例(29.3％).所有患者均完成调强放疗,124例患者行诱导化疗,其中24例患者行同期化疗,33例患者行辅助化疗.结果:全组5年局部控制率、无远处转移生存率、无瘤生存率和总生存率分别为:90.9％、89.9％、82.5％和83.4％.T2、T3期患者5年局部控制率分别为93.1％、89.4％(x2=0.407,P=0.524),无远处转移生存率分别为91.2％、89.3％(x2=0.152,P=0.697),无瘤生存率分别为86.5％、80.0％(x2=0.899,P=0.343),总生存率分别为81.1％、84.7％(x2=0.311,P=0.577).N0-1、N2期患者5年局部控制率分别为91.1％、90.9％(x2=0.007,P=0.933),无远处转移生存率分别为97.8％、85.8％ (x2=4.69,P=0.030),无瘤生存率分别为88.9％、79.2％(x2=1.746,P=0.183 6),总生存率分别为93.5％、78.1％(x2=5.052,P=0.025).辅助化疗对IMRT Ⅲ期鼻咽癌未能获益,但3、4级毒性不良反应明显增加(48％ vs 27.6％,P＜0.005).结论:对临床Ⅲ期鼻咽癌患者,IMRT联合化疗可以取得较好的疗效,N0-1期较N2期患者有较高的总生存率和无远处转移生存率,进一步提高IMRT Ⅲ期鼻咽癌疗效还需寻找更有效的化疗药物、靶向药物及更合理的联合治疗方案.     

鼻咽癌调强放疗计划后剂量分布与预后相关性研究

摘 要：［目的］ 探讨鼻咽癌调强放疗计划后剂量分布对鼻咽癌预后评估的作用。［方法］ 回顾性分析280例经病理证实,有完整5年随访资料,行根治性调强放化疗的鼻咽癌病例,分析其调强放疗计划后剂量分布与预后的关系。将调强放疗计划后剂量分布分为3组：（1）A组：第一权重危及器官、靶区剂量、其他危及器官的剂量分布均符合要求;（2）B组：第一权重危及器官、靶区剂量符合要求,其他危及器官超量;（3）C组：第一权重危及器官剂量符合要求,靶区剂量剂量不足和或其他危及器官超量。病例随访结果包括总生存率、无病生存率、远处转移率和局部复发率。［结果］ A组5年生存率95.3%,无病生存率82.8%,远处转移率17.8%,局部复发率4.7%;B组分别为85.4%、57.3%、17.5%和9.8%;C组分别为58.6%、34.5%、27.6%和41.4%;3组间远处转移率差异无统计学意义（χ2=1.97,P=0.374）,总生存率、无病生存率及局部复发率差异均有统计学意义（χ2=40.92,P＜0.001;χ2=46.67,P＜0.001;χ2=68.08,P＜0.001）。［结论］ 分析鼻咽癌调强放疗计划后剂量分布有助于判断鼻咽癌预后。     

Organ motion in image-guided radiotherapy: lessons from real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy

External radiotherapy using imaging technology for patient setup is often called image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). The most important problem to solve in IGRT is organ motion. Four-dimensional radiotherapy (4DRT), in which the accuracy of localization is improved – not only in space but also in time – in comparison to 3DRT, is required in IGRT. Real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy (RTRT) has been shown to be feasible for performing 4DRT with the aid of a fiducial marker near the tumor. Lung, liver, prostate, spinal/paraspinal, gynecological, head and neck, esophagus, and pancreas tumors are now ready for dose escalation studies using RTRT.     

国产威达（WD－H·D·R18）后装腔内治疗机的临床应用（附380例疗效观察）

我院自１９９２年６月至１９９３年６月使用广东威达（ＷＤ·Ｈ·Ｄ·Ｒ·１８型）后装腔内治疗机，施行腔内放疗、组织间插植、术中置管和表面敷贴放疗等方法，治疗各种癌瘤共３８０例，其近期疗效为：完全消失７９．７４％（３０３／３８０）部分消失：１４．７４％（５６／３８０）无效：５．５３％（２１／３８０）；总有效率：９４．４８％（３５９／３８０）。全组随诊时间为１－１２个月。结合临床应用的若干问题对该机作出初步评价。     

2019年中国大陆地区放疗人员和设备基本情况调查研究

[目的]了解我国大陆地区放疗人才及设备情况。[方法]2019年4月10日至9月20日期间,中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会通过线上问卷的形式进行了全国第九次行业调查,调查2018年度全国各个医院从事放疗的人员、设备、技术、年放疗人次以及主要放疗病种等数据。[结果]本次问卷回收率100%,所有放疗单位数据通过各省医学会再次确认。中国大陆地区放疗单位1463家。从事放疗的工作人员共29096人,其中放疗医师14575人、物理师4172人、技师8940人、维修师1409人。共有直线加速器2021台(含进口和国产),钴60远距离治疗机66台,近距离治疗机339台,质子重离子机5台,常规模拟机1453台,CT模拟机355台。能开展二维放疗1002家,三维适形放疗1272家,静态调强放疗1121家,Rapid Arc145家,容积旋转调强放疗279家,立体定向放射治疗297家,近距离治疗273家,全身X线治疗75家,全身电子线治疗73家,Tomo治疗38家,质子/重离子治疗5家。病床数97836张(含综合医院肿瘤科病床),放疗年治疗人数1259602人。[结论]中国大陆地区放疗单位数目缓慢增长,放疗从业人员较前稍减少,开展放疗新技术单位逐年增加,全国每百万人口放疗设备(加速器+钴60)仅1.5,仍低于WHO的要求。     

Clinician's guide to prostate IMRT plan assessment and optimisation

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) offers dosimetric benefit for irregularly shaped treatment volumes compared to three-dimensional conformal approaches. Some groups advocate IMRT as the standard of care for prostate radiotherapy. For clinicians, assessment of an IMRT plan can introduce new opportunities and challenges. Although a standard IMRT plan may be deemed acceptable by meeting pre-set dose constraints, further optimisation may yield a superior treatment plan by further reducing dose to critical structures or improving target volume homogeneity. The aim of this article is to present aspects of IMRT planning relevant to clinicians to aid in plan critiquing.     

Evaluation of a Novel Field-placement Algorithm for Locoregional Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Including the Internal Mammary Chain

Aims

Irradiation of the internal mammary chain (IMC) is increasing following recently published data, but the need for formal delineation of lymph node volumes is slowing implementation in some healthcare settings. A field-placement algorithm for irradiating locoregional lymph nodes including the IMC could reduce the resource impact of introducing irradiation of the IMC. This study describes the development and evaluation of such an algorithm.

Radiothérapie adaptative : stratégies et bénéfices selon les localisations tumorales

Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is a complexe image-guided radiotherapy modality that comprises multiple planning to account for anatomical variations occurring during irradiation. Schematically, two strategies of RTA can be distinguished and combined according to tumor locations. One or more replanning can be proposed to correct systematic variations such as tumor shrinkage. A library of treatment plans with day-to-day plan selection from cone-beam CT imaging can also be proposed to correct random variations such as uterine motion or bladder/rectum volume changes. Because of strong anatomical variations occurring during irradiation, RTA appears therefore particularly justified in head and neck, lung, bladder, cervical and rectum and pancreas tumors, and to a lesser extent for prostate tumors and other digestive tumors. For these tumor locations, ART provides a fairly clear dosimetric benefit but a clinical benefit not yet formally demonstrated. ART cannot be proposed in a routine practice but must be evaluated medico-economically in the context of prospective trials. A rigorous quality control must be associated.     

非小细胞肺癌3D-CRT与IMRT立体定向放疗剂量学比较

目的:研究三维适形(3D-CRT)和逆向调强(IMRT)两种计划方式在进行早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)立体定向放射治疗(SBRT)的剂量学差异。方法:选取接受放射治疗的早期NSCLC患者12例,分别采用3D-CRT和IMRT技术设计SBRT治疗计划。比较两种计划方式下PTV的相关剂量学参数(CI、HI、D1%、D99%),肺、胸壁、心脏及脊髓的剂量学参数(Vx、Dmean、Dmax),以及加速器的机器跳数、治疗时间等差异。结果:在PTV相关参数比较中,3D-CRT计划的CI、HI以及D1%均差于IMRT,差异有统计学意义,P<0.05;但是两者的D99%差异无统计学意义,P>0.05。在危及器官受量的比较中,3D-CRT与IMRT计划的患侧肺V5～V40、健侧肺V5～V15、双侧肺V5～V40、胸壁V5～V40、Dmean、心脏V20～V40、Dmean及脊髓Dmax的差异均无统计学意义,P>0.05。3D-CRT计划的机器跳数及治疗时间较IMRT计划分别减少了53%和78%,P<0.05。在绝对剂量体积比较中,3D-CRT的V60～V75及V45～V60均大于IMRT,V20～V45小于IMRT,差异均无统计学意义,P>0.05。结论:IMRT计划在早期NSCLC行SBRT治疗中不具有明显的剂量学优势。考虑到IMRT实施过程的复杂性和不确定性,早期NSCLC行SBRT治疗时3D-CRT可作为首选。     

The Long and the Short of it: the Role of Short-course Radiotherapy in the Neoadjuvant Management of Rectal Cancer

Total mesorectal excision is the cornerstone of treatment for rectal cancer. Multiple randomised trials have shown a reduction in local recurrence rates with the addition of preoperative radiotherapy, either as a 1-week hypofractionated short-course (SCRT) or a conventionally fractionated long-course (LCRT) schedule with concurrent chemotherapy. There is also increasing interest in the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to radiotherapy with the aim of improving disease-free survival. The relative use of SCRT and LCRT varies considerably across the world. This is reflected in, and is probably driven in part by, disparity between international guideline recommendations. In addition, different approaches to treatment may exist both between and within countries, with variation related to patient, disease and treatment centre and financial factors. In this review, we will specifically focus on the use of SCRT for the treatment of rectal cancer. We will discuss the literature base and current guidelines, highlighting the challenges and controversies in clinical application of this evidence. We will also discuss potential future applications of SCRT, including its role in optimisation and intensification of treatment for rectal cancer.     

A Randomised Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing the Deliverability and Acute Toxicity of Wide Tangent versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy to the Breast and Internal Mammary Chain

AimsInclusion of the internal mammary chain in the radiotherapy target volume (IMC-RT) improves disease-free and overall survival in higher risk breast cancer patients, but increases radiation doses to heart and lungs. Dosimetric data show that either modified wide-tangential fields (WT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) together with [AQ1]voluntary deep inspiration breath hold (vDIBH) keep mean heart doses below 4 Gy in most patients. However, the impact on departmental resources has not yet been documented. This phase II clinical trial compared the time taken to deliver IMC-RT using either WT and vDIBH or VMAT and vDIBH, together with planning time, dosimetry, set-up reproducibility and toxicity.Materials and methodsLeft-sided breast cancer patients requiring IMC-RT were randomised to receive either WT(vDIBH) or VMAT radiotherapy. The primary outcome was treatment time, powered to detect a minimum difference of 75 min (5 min/fraction) between techniques. The population mean displacement, systematic error and random error for cone beam computed tomography chest wall matches in three directions of movement were calculated. Target volume and organ at risk doses were compared between groups. Side-effects, including skin (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), lung and oesophageal toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03) rates, were compared between the groups over 3 months. Patient-reported outcome measures, including shoulder toxicity at baseline, 6 months and 1 year, were compared.ResultsTwenty-one patients were recruited from a single UK centre between February 2017 and January 2018. The mean (standard deviation) total treatment time per fraction for VMAT treatments was 13.2 min (1.7 min) compared with 28.1 min (3.3 min) for WT(vDIBH). There were no statistically significant differences in patient set-up errors in between groups. The average mean heart dose for WT(vDIBH) was 2.6 Gy compared with 3.4 Gy for VMAT(vDIBH) (P = 0.13). The mean ipsilateral lung V_17Gy was 32.8% in the WT(vDIBH) group versus 34.4% in the VMAT group (P = 0.2). The humeral head (mean dose 16.8 Gy versus 2.8 Gy), oesophagus (maximum dose 37.3 Gy versus 20.1 Gy) and thyroid (mean dose 22.0 Gy versus 11.2 Gy) all received a statistically significantly higher dose in the VMAT group. There were no statistically significant differences in skin, lung or oesophageal toxicity within 3 months of treatment. Patient-reported outcomes of shoulder toxicity, pain, fatigue, breathlessness and breast symptoms were similar between groups at 1 year.ConclusionVMAT(vDIBH) and WT(vDIBH) are feasible options for locoregional breast radiotherapy including the IMC. VMAT improves nodal coverage and delivers treatment more quickly, resulting in less breath holds for the patient. This is at the cost of increased dose to some non-target tissues. The latter does not appear to translate into increased toxicity in this small study.