国际肿瘤学杂志

国际肿瘤学杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10): 785-788.doi: １０．３７６０／ｃｍａ．ｊ．ｉｓｓｎ．１６７３４２２Ｘ．２０１４．１０．０２０

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

食管癌两种旋转调强放疗技术剂量学对比研究

张若辉, 樊晓妹, 白文文, 李润霄, 曹彦坤, 韩春, 迟子锋   

  1. ０５００１１石家庄，河北医科大学第四医院放疗科
  • 出版日期:2014-10-29 发布日期:2014-10-11
  • 通讯作者: 迟子锋，Ｅｍａｉｌ：ｃｈｉｚｆ２１６＠１２６．ｃｏｍ E-mail:ｃｈｉｚｆ２１６＠１２６．ｃｏｍ
  • 基金资助:

    河北省卫生厅医学科学研究重点课题计划（２０１３０２５３）

Department of Clinical Laboratory, Jining First  People′s Hospital of Shandong Province, Jining 272111, China

ZHANG  Ruo-Hui, FAN  Xiao-Mei, BAI  Wen-Wen, LI  Run-Xiao, CAO  Yan-Kun, HAN  Chun, CHI  Zi-Feng   

  1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Jining First  People′s Hospital of Shandong Province, Jining 272111, China
  • Online:2014-10-29 Published:2014-10-11
  • Contact: ＣｈｉＺｉｆｅｎｇ E-mail:ｃｈｉｚｆ２１６＠１２６．ｃｏｍ

PDF

1400

被引次数

6

摘要： 目的　通过比较食管癌容积旋转调强放疗（ＶＭＡＴ）与固定剂量率旋转调强放疗（ＩＭＡＴ）计 划，分析 ＶＭＡＴ与 ＩＭＡＴ在剂量学方面的特点。方法　对入组的２２例食管癌患者使用核通 Ｏｎｃｅｎｔｒａ４．１ 计划系统设计 ＩＭＡＴ和 ＶＭＡＴ两种治疗计划，处方剂量为２Ｇｙ／次，３０次。要求≥９５％计划靶体积（ＰＴＶ） 达处方剂量，超过１１０％处方剂量 ＰＴＶ（Ｖ１１０）＜１０％，脊髓最大剂量≤４５Ｇｙ，双肺受量 Ｖ２０≤２８％，Ｖ３０≤ １８％。通过剂量体积直方图统计 ＰＴＶ和正常组织的剂量体积参数，以及机器跳数（ＭＵ）、治疗时间和伽马 （γ）通过率。ＳＰＳＳ１９．０软件对２组数据进行配对 ｔ检验分析。结果　显示 ＩＭＡＴ组 ＰＴＶ的适形指数（ｔ＝ ３．３５，Ｐ＝０．００３）、２％体积所受的剂量（ｔ＝－２．２７，Ｐ＝０．０３４）、肺 Ｖ３０（ｔ＝－２．４６，Ｐ＝０．０２３）均优于 ＶＭＡＴ 组。ＶＭＡＴ组脊髓Ｖ４０（ｔ＝２．３７，Ｐ＝０．０２７）、肺Ｖ５（ｔ＝２．４３，Ｐ＝０．０２４）要优于ＩＭＡＴ组。ＰＴＶ、ＣＴＶ、肿瘤体 积（ＧＴＶ）以及心脏、脊髓、肺 Ｖ２０及平均受量、γ通过率差异无统计学意义。结论　ＩＭＡＴ在治疗时间和组 织高剂量受照区域要低于 ＶＭＡＴ，在 ＭＵ和组织低剂量受照区域要高于 ＶＭＡＴ，两种治疗方式均可满足临 床需求，可根据患者实际情况进行选择治疗。

关键词: 食管肿瘤, 放射疗法, 放射治疗剂量

Abstract: ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between mRNA   expression of DMBT1 in breast cancer tissues and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with breast cancer. Methods60 cases of breast cancer tissues, 30 cases of breast paracancerous hyperplasia tissues and 30 cases of breast paracancerous normal tissues were selected, then reverse transcriptionpolymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) were performed to detect the differential expression of DMBT1 in mRNA levels. Furthermore, its relationship with clinicopathological characteristics of patients with breast cancer was analyzed. Results44 out of 60 breast cancer tissues were detected no or low expression of DMBT1 (73.3%), and 16 out of 60 cases were found normal expression of DMBT1 (26.7%). There were statistically significant differences between paracancerous normal tissues and breast cancer tissues, also between paracancerous hyperplasia tissues and breast cancer tissues (χ2=11.72, P=0.000 62; χ2=15.99, P=0.000 06). No significant difference was found between the low expression of DMBT1 with the age of patients (χ2=1.733, P=0.188), the size of tumor (χ2=0.776, P=0.378) and the histological grade of tissues (χ2=1.000, P=0.316). However, the loss rates of DMBT1 mRNA expression in patients with lymph node metastasis and clinical stage Ⅲ were higher than that in patients without metastasis and clinicalⅠⅡstage (χ2=4.885, P=0.026; χ2=4.600, P=0.032). ConclusionLow expression of DMBT1 mRNA is closely associated with the metastasis and clinical stage of breast cancer.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, DMBT1 gene