DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Dosimetric Comparision for Rectal Cancer using 3D-CRT, IMRT, Tomotherapy

직장암의 방사선 치료 시 3D-CRT, IMRT, Tomotheray를 이용한 치료계획 및 주변 정상장기 선량 비교

  • Lee, Seung-chul (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongshin University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Jae (Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College) ;
  • Jang, Seong-Joo (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongshin University)
  • 이승철 (동신대학교 방사선학과) ;
  • 김영재 (대구보건대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 장성주 (동신대학교 방사선학과)
  • Received : 2017.08.08
  • Accepted : 2017.10.31
  • Published : 2017.10.31

Abstract

In this paper, we compared the Radiation treatment plan of rectal cancer on 3D-conformal Radiation Therapy, Tomotherapy and Linac Based IMRT using treatment planning system and to find the optimal treatment technique. The results of the comparison of treatments are as follows. In tumor tissue absorption dose more than 95% of the dose prescription dose and normal tissues(bladder, small bowel, fumer bone head) was NOT Normal tissue complication rate(V40, V30, V20, V10) but, The most effective treatment(dose distribution) for the three treatments was tomotherapy based IMRT. The worst was 3D-CRT. If this study is applied to patients under their health status and physical environment, patient's prognosis and quality of life will improve.

본 논문에서는 직장암 환자를 대상으로 일반적 치료방식인 3차원입체조형치료법과 선형가속기 기반의 IMRT, 그리고 토모테라피를 이용한 IMRT의 치료계획을 각각 수립하여 직장암 환자에 대한 최적의 치료법을 비교하고자 하였다. 치료법 비교 결과 종양조직에서는 처방선량의 95% 이상의 흡수선량을 만족시키고 있었으며 정상조직인 방광, 소장, 넙다리머리뼈의 정상조직의 합병증 발생율의 기준(V40, V30, V20, V10)을 만족하였다. 다만, 3가지의 치료법에서 선량분포측면에서 가장 효율적인 치료법은 Tomotherapy기반의 IMRT였으며 가장 낮은 효율을 보인 치료법은 3DCRT였다. 직장암의 방사선 치료시 환자의 자세재현성, 개인적인 신체환경 등을 고려하여 가장 적합한 치료방식을 적용한다면 환자의 예후와 삶의 질에 긍정적인 효과가 나타날 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ncational Cancer Information Center
  2. Emami B : Tolerance of Normal Tissue to Therapeutic Radiation. Radiother Oncol. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 25-48, 2013
  3. Bazan JG, Hara W, Hsu A, Kunz PA, Ford J, Fisher GA : Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Cancer Vol. 117, No. 15, pp. 3342-3351, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25901
  4. Lawrence B. Marks, Ellen D. Yorke, Andrew Jackson, Randall K. Ten Haken, Louis S. Constine, Avraham Eisbruch, Soren M. Bentzen, Jiho Nam, and Joseph O. Deasy : Use of Normal Tissue Complication Probability Models in the Clinic. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. Vol.76, pp.10-19, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754
  5. Seok Ho Lee, Tae Hyun Kim, Dae Yong Kim, Kwan Ho Cho, Joo-Young Kim, Sung Yong Park, Dae Hyun Kim, Seok-Byung Lim, Hyo Seong Choi, Hee Jin Chang: The effect of belly board location in rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy, J. Oncology, Vol. 18, Issue. 6, pp. 441-446, 2006
  6. Leire ArbeaEmail author, Luis Isaac Ramos, Rafael Martinez-Monge, Marta Moreno and Javier Aristu. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): dosimetric comparison and clinical implications. Radiat Oncol. Vol. 5, No. 17, 2010
  7. IH Abdulkareem : Radiation-induced femoral head necrosis. Niger J Clin Pract Vol. 16, pp. 123-6, 2013 https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.106787
  8. HI Libshitz and BS Edeiken, Radiotherapy changes of the paediatric hip. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Vol. 137, No. 3, pp. 585-588, 1981. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.137.3.585

Cited by

  1. 양성자 치료: 융복합 첨단 암 치료로서의 임상적 유효성에 대한 문헌 고찰 vol.9, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15207/jkcs.2018.9.10.191