-
胸部肿瘤在我国的发病率较高,主要包括肺癌、乳腺癌、食管癌、纵隔肿瘤及胸部转移瘤等,胸部放疗是主要治疗手段之一[1],但在取得良好放疗效果的同时,也容易引起邻近相关脏器和组织的放射性毒性损伤,如放射性肺炎、放射性食管炎、放射性心脏损伤[2-3]及椎体损伤等,影响患者的治疗效果、预后和生存质量。本研究观察胸部肿瘤患者放疗前后椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取程度的改变,并分析其与临床及肿瘤放疗因素的相关性,评估患者骨骼及骨髓的损伤,以期为临床治疗方案的制定及调整提供参考,保护靶器官免受放射性损伤,提高患者后期生存质量。
-
在110例患者中,48例(43.6%)患者出现不同程度的椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取减低,出现摄取异常的椎体受照剂量为1039.5~4488.7(2139.5±839.8)cGy(典型病例的相关图像见图1),放疗前后骨显像时间间隔最短为61 d,最长为326 d,中位时间为160 d;其余62例(56.4%)患者未见放射性摄取异常。椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取程度与总放疗剂量(χ2=4.401,P=0.036)、放疗次数(χ2=2.241,P=0.027)、椎体受照剂量(χ2=5.913,P=0.015)及放疗前后骨显像时间间隔(χ2=12.542,P=0.013)有统计学相关性,与年龄、性别、体重指数、单次放疗剂量、PTV、PTV剂量、椎体受照体积及放疗靶区中心至椎体中心的距离无统计学相关性(表1)。
图 1 右肺癌伴纵隔及肺门淋巴结转移患者(男性,77岁)放疗前(A)及放疗后(B)全身骨扫描图、放疗靶区CT图(C~E)及剂量体积直方图(F、G)
Figure 1. Whole-body bone scan before radiotherapy (figure A) and after radiotherapy (figure B), radiotherapy target area (figure C-E) and dose volume histogram (F, G) of a right lung cancer with mediastinal and hilar lymph node metastasis patient
临床因素 椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取减低 χ2值 P值 95%CI 是(n=48) 否(n=62) 男性/女性(例) 25/23 37/25 0.694 0.405 0.568~4.058 年龄(岁) 58.1±10.1 58.4±13.2 0.991 0.320 0.936~1.022 体重指数(kg/m2) 22.5±3.7 23.5±3.4 0.288 0.591 0.836~1.108 总放疗剂量(cGy) 5159.2±911.5 4487.7±1287.1 4.401 0.036 1.000~1.008 单次剂量(cGy) 205.8±19.6 220.7±43.6 3.284 0.070 0.870~1.005 放疗次数(次) 26 22 2.241 0.027 0.240-1.062 PTV(cm3) 340.2 573.7 0.544 0.461 0.998~1.001 PTV剂量(cGy) 4083.1±1158.7 3932.4±1319.7 0.002 0.963 1.000~1.000 椎体受照体积(cm3) 46.6±17.3 50.1±22.2 0.013 0.910 0.979~1.025 椎体受照剂量(cGy) 2139.5±839.8 1332.5±723.0 5.913 0.015 1.000~1.001 放疗靶区中心至椎体中心的
距离(cm)6.6±2.9 6.4±3.3 0.814 0.367 0.916~1.267 放疗前后骨显像时间间隔(d) 160.3±61.1 209.8±76.4 12.542 0.013 0.995~1.004 注:表中,MDP:亚甲基二膦酸盐;PTV:计划靶体积;CI:可变区间 表 1 110例肿瘤患者的临床因素与椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取程度的相关性分析
Table 1. Correlation analysis of clinical factors and 99Tcm-MDP uptake of vertebral body
60~120 d、121~180 d组分别与181~240 d、241~365 d组相比,椎体对99Tcm-MDP的摄取差异有统计学意义(χ2=3.850~15.429,均P<0.05)(表2)。时间间隔<180 d出现椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取异常的患者较多,占总摄取异常患者的66.7%(32/48)。
组别 例数 99Tcm-MDP摄取减低 99Tcm-MDP摄取正常 60~120 d组 23 52.2%(12/23) 47.8%(11/23) 121~180 d组 30 66.7%(20/30) 33.3%(10/30) 181~240 d组 27 40.7%(11/27)a, b 59.3%(16/27) 241~365 d组 30 16.7%(5/30)a, b 83.3%(25/30) 总计 110 43.6%(48/110) 56.4%(62/110) 注:表中,a:与60~120 d组比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=3.850、7.534,P=0.045、0.006);b:与121~180 d组比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=15.429、0.065,P=0.001、0.041)。MDP:亚甲基二膦酸盐 表 2 110例肿瘤患者放疗前后不同时间间隔骨显像椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取的比较
Table 2. Comparison of vertebral body radionuclide uptake between different bone imaging intervals before and after radiotherapy
-
椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取异常的灵敏度为74.6%,特异度为82.9%;通过ROC曲线分析得到AUC为0.934(图2),表明(T/N前)−(T/N后)/(T/N前)对评估椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取改变率的效果较佳。椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取异常的最佳诊断阈值为0.161。
胸部肿瘤放疗后椎体对99Tcm-MDP的摄取表现及分析
Performance and analysis of vertebral 99Tcm-MDP uptake after chest tumor radiotherapy
-
摘要:
目的 分析行胸部肿瘤放疗后全身骨显像所示椎体对99Tcm-亚甲基二膦酸盐(MDP)的摄取变化及其与临床放疗参数的相关性。 方法 回顾性分析2014年4月20日至2018年12月31日在山东省肿瘤医院进行胸部肿瘤放疗前后行全身骨显像的110例患者[其中男性62例、女性48例,年龄(58.2±11.9)岁]的临床资料,包括临床病史、肿瘤因素及放疗计划等,通过半定量分析将骨扫描所示结果分为椎体摄取正常组和椎体摄取异常组。按照放疗前后骨显像时间间隔进行分组:60~120 d组(23例)、121~180 d组(30例)、181~240 d组(27例)、241~365 d组(30例)。组间比较采用χ2检验,采用二分类Logistic回归分析椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取的改变及其与临床放疗因素的相关性;计算(T/N前)−(T/N后)/(T/N前)(T为靶区受照中心3个完整椎体的99Tcm-MDP摄取值,N为靶区外3个正常椎体的99Tcm-MDP摄取值),绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,计算椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取变化率的最佳诊断阈值。 结果 110例患者中,48例(43.6%)出现椎体局部对99Tcm-MDP摄取减低,出现摄取异常的椎体受照剂量为1039.5~4488.7(2139.5±839.8) cGy,放疗前后骨显像时间间隔最短为61 d,最长为326 d,中位时间为160 d;余62例(56.4%)患者椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取未见异常。椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取减低程度与总放疗剂量(χ2=4.401,P=0.036)、放疗次数(χ2=2.241,P=0.027)、椎体受照剂量(χ2=5.913,P=0.015)及放疗前后骨显像时间间隔(χ2=12.542,P=0.013)有统计学相关性,与年龄、性别、体重指数、单次放疗剂量、计划靶体积、计划靶体积剂量、椎体受照体积及放疗靶区中心至椎体中心的距离无统计学相关性;放疗前后骨显像时间间隔的组间比较发现,60~120 d、120~180 d组分别与181~240 d、241~365 d组相比,椎体对99Tcm-MDP的摄取差异均有统计学意义(χ2=3.850~15.429,均P<0.05),时间间隔<180 d出现椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取异常的患者较多,占总摄取异常组的66.7%(32/48)。半定量分析评估椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取异常的灵敏度为74.6%,特异度为82.9%。ROC曲线下面积为0.934,椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取异常的最佳诊断阈值为0.161。 结论 放疗后行骨显像的时间越早,椎体损伤的检出率越高;椎体摄取99Tcm-MDP的改变可在一定程度上反映患者椎体放射性损伤的程度。 -
关键词:
- 胸部肿瘤 /
- 放射疗法,计算机辅助 /
- 99m锝美罗酸盐 /
- 全身骨显像 /
- 椎体损伤
Abstract:Objective To analyze the changes in vertebral 99Tcm-medronate (MDP) uptake and the correlation with clinical radiotherapy parameters in chest tumor patients. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in 110 patients (including 62 males and 48 females aged 58.2 ± 11.9 years) who underwent chest tumor radiotherapy in Shandong Cancer Hospital from April 20, 2014 to October 31, 2018, and whole-body bone scan was performed before and after radiotherapy. The clinical information, tumor factors, and radiotherapy plan were analyzed using semiquantitative analysis. The results of the bone scan were divided into normal and abnormal vertebral uptake groups. In accordance with the time interval of bone imaging before and after radiotherapy, the patients were further classified into groups, namely, 60–120 (23 cases), 121–180 (30 cases), 181–240 (27 cases), and 241–365 (30 cases) days. The comparison among groups were analyzed using the χ2 test, and the statistical results were analyzed using the binary classification logistic regression. The change in the vertebral body 99Tcm-MDP uptake and the correlation with clinical radiotherapy parameters in chest tumor patients were discussed. The (T/Nbefore) − (T/Nafter)/(T/Nbefore) was calculated, and the receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn. The best diagnosis threshold of vertebral 99Tcm-MDP uptake abnormality was found. Results In 110 patients, 48 (43.6%) had local poor vertebral radioactivity uptake with minimum, maximum, and average vertebral exposure doses of 1039.5, 4488.7, and (2139.5±839.8) cGy, respectively. The shortest, longest, and median imaging interval was 61, 326, and 160 days, respectively. The remaining 62 patients (56.4%) had no obvious abnormal radioactive uptake. The degree of vertebral body uptake was correlated with the radiotherapy dose ( χ2=4.401, P=0.036), radiotherapy frequency ( χ2=2.241, P=0.027), vertebral body irradiation dose (χ2=5.913, P=0.015), and imaging interval before and after radiotherapy ( χ2=12.542, P=0.013). No statistical correlation with age, gender, body mass index, single radiotherapy dose, planning target volume, planning target volume dose, vertebral irradiation volume, and distance from the radiotherapy center to the vertebral center was observed. In the grouped imaging intervals and compared groups, a difference was observed among 60–120, 121–180 days and 181–240, 241–365 days in vertebral body uptake (χ2=3.850–15.492, all P>0.05), and the abnormal vertebral 99Tcm-MDP uptake at intervals less than 180 days accounted for 66.7% (32/48). The sensitivity and specificity of evaluating the 99Tcm-MDP uptake abnormality were 74.6% and 82.9%, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.934 by the the receiver operating characteristic curve, indicating that (T/Nbefore)−(T/Nafter)/(T/Nbefore) was good at evaluating the change rate of vertebral 99Tcm-MDP uptake, and the optimal diagnostic threshold for vertebral 99Tcm-MDP uptake abnormality was 0.161. Conclusions Early imaging time after radiotherapy results in high detection rate of vertebral injury. The change in vertebral body 99Tcm-MDP uptake can reflect the degree of radioactive vertebral damage to some extent. -
图 1 右肺癌伴纵隔及肺门淋巴结转移患者(男性,77岁)放疗前(A)及放疗后(B)全身骨扫描图、放疗靶区CT图(C~E)及剂量体积直方图(F、G)
Figure 1. Whole-body bone scan before radiotherapy (figure A) and after radiotherapy (figure B), radiotherapy target area (figure C-E) and dose volume histogram (F, G) of a right lung cancer with mediastinal and hilar lymph node metastasis patient
表 1 110例肿瘤患者的临床因素与椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取程度的相关性分析
Table 1. Correlation analysis of clinical factors and 99Tcm-MDP uptake of vertebral body
临床因素 椎体99Tcm-MDP摄取减低 χ2值 P值 95%CI 是(n=48) 否(n=62) 男性/女性(例) 25/23 37/25 0.694 0.405 0.568~4.058 年龄(岁) 58.1±10.1 58.4±13.2 0.991 0.320 0.936~1.022 体重指数(kg/m2) 22.5±3.7 23.5±3.4 0.288 0.591 0.836~1.108 总放疗剂量(cGy) 5159.2±911.5 4487.7±1287.1 4.401 0.036 1.000~1.008 单次剂量(cGy) 205.8±19.6 220.7±43.6 3.284 0.070 0.870~1.005 放疗次数(次) 26 22 2.241 0.027 0.240-1.062 PTV(cm3) 340.2 573.7 0.544 0.461 0.998~1.001 PTV剂量(cGy) 4083.1±1158.7 3932.4±1319.7 0.002 0.963 1.000~1.000 椎体受照体积(cm3) 46.6±17.3 50.1±22.2 0.013 0.910 0.979~1.025 椎体受照剂量(cGy) 2139.5±839.8 1332.5±723.0 5.913 0.015 1.000~1.001 放疗靶区中心至椎体中心的
距离(cm)6.6±2.9 6.4±3.3 0.814 0.367 0.916~1.267 放疗前后骨显像时间间隔(d) 160.3±61.1 209.8±76.4 12.542 0.013 0.995~1.004 注:表中,MDP:亚甲基二膦酸盐;PTV:计划靶体积;CI:可变区间 表 2 110例肿瘤患者放疗前后不同时间间隔骨显像椎体对99Tcm-MDP摄取的比较
Table 2. Comparison of vertebral body radionuclide uptake between different bone imaging intervals before and after radiotherapy
组别 例数 99Tcm-MDP摄取减低 99Tcm-MDP摄取正常 60~120 d组 23 52.2%(12/23) 47.8%(11/23) 121~180 d组 30 66.7%(20/30) 33.3%(10/30) 181~240 d组 27 40.7%(11/27)a, b 59.3%(16/27) 241~365 d组 30 16.7%(5/30)a, b 83.3%(25/30) 总计 110 43.6%(48/110) 56.4%(62/110) 注:表中,a:与60~120 d组比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=3.850、7.534,P=0.045、0.006);b:与121~180 d组比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=15.429、0.065,P=0.001、0.041)。MDP:亚甲基二膦酸盐 -
[1] 薛志东, 吴正东. 食管癌治疗中TP方案化疗序贯三维适形放疗的临床应用[J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志, 2011, 18(20): 1646−1648. DOI: 10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2011.20.017.
Xue ZD, Wu ZD. Application sequential chemotherapy with taxol plus cisplatin and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in esophageal cancer[J]. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat, 2011, 18(20): 1646−1648. DOI: 10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2011.20.017.[2] Fried DV, Das SK, Marks LB. Imaging Radiation-Induced Normal Tissue Injury to Quantify Regional Dose Response[J]. Semin Radiat Oncol, 2017, 27(4): 325−331. DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.04.004. [3] Kalman NS, Zhao SS, Anscher MS, et al. Current Status of Targeted Radioprotection and Radiation Injury Mitigation and Treatment Agents: A Critical Review of the Literature[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2017, 98(3): 662−682. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.211. [4] 中华医学会核医学分会大型医用设备临床使用评价指标制定工作委员会. SPECT和SPECT/CT仪临床使用评价指标(2015版)[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2015, 35(5): 414−416. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095−2848.2015.05.019.
Working Committee for the Establishment of Clinical Use Evaluation Indexes of Large Medical Equipment of Nuclear Medicine Branch of Chinese Medical Association. SPECT and SPECT/CT instrument clinical use evaluation indicators[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2015, 35(5): 414−416. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095−2848.2015.05.019.[5] 陈永盛. 肺癌调强适型放疗临床靶区勾画的研究[J/OL]. 临床检验杂志: 电子版, 2017, 6(3): 460−462[2019-02-18]. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=lcjyzz-d201703014. DOI: CNKI:SUN:LNJI.0.2017-03-014.
Chen YS. Study of the clinical target volume in intensity modulated radiation therapy for lung cancer[J/OL]. Clin Lab J: Electron Ed, 2017, 6(3): 460−462[2019-02-18]. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=lcjyzz-d201703014. DOI: CNKI:SUN:LNJI.0.2017-03-014.[6] 安锐, 黄钢. 核医学[M]. 3版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2016: 182−195.
An R, Huang G. Nuclear medicine[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House, 2016: 182−195.[7] 任佳忠, 霍宗伟, 王晓慧, 等. 99Tcm-MIBI显像在99Tcm-MDP显像不能定性骨病灶中的应用价值[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2018, 38(3): 182−186. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095−2848.2018.03.008.
Ren JZ, Huo ZW, Wang XH, et al. Clinical value of 99Tcm-MIBI scintigraphy for bone lesions of indefinite diagnosis with 99Tcm-MDP bone imaging[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2018, 38(3): 182−186. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095−2848.2018.03.008.[8] 邓群力, 莫逸, 刘康龙. 99mTc-亚甲基二膦酸盐骨显像评价乳腺癌骨转移的特征[J]. 分子影像学杂志, 2018, 41(3): 316−319. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674−4500.2018.03.07.
Deng QL, Mo Y, Liu KL. Evaluation of characteristic of breast cancer bone metastasis with 99mTc-MDP bone imaging[J]. J Mol Imaging, 2018, 41(3): 316−319. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674−4500.2018.03.07.[9] 陈刚, 徐万龙, 锡林宝勒日, 等. 放疗后椎体骨细胞放射性损伤的评估[J]. 江苏医药, 2011, 37(16): 1882−1884. DOI: 10.19460/j.cnki.0253−3685.2011.16.008.
Chen G, Xu WL, Xilin BLR, et al. Evaluation of radiation damages of vertebral bone cells after radiotherapy in dogs[J]. Jiangsu Med J, 2011, 37(16): 1882−1884. DOI: 10.19460/j.cnki.0253−3685.2011.16.008.[10] Deloch L, Derer A, Hartmann J, et al. Modern Radiotherapy Concepts and the Impact of Radiation on Immune Activation [J/OL]. Front Oncol, 2016, 6: 141[2019-02-18]. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2016.00141/full. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2016.00141. [11] 付正, 周静, 郭延栾, 等. 肿瘤患者放疗后照射野内椎体骨髓FDG PET/CT影像学表现[J]. 中国辐射卫生, 2016, 25(2): 233−236. DOI: 10.13491/j.cnki.issn.1004−714x.2016.02.038.
Fu Z, Zhou J, Guo YL, et al. PET/CT Features of the Bone Marrow in the Radiation Field after Radiation Therapy[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2016, 25(2): 233−236. DOI: 10.13491/j.cnki.issn.1004−714x.2016.02.038.[12] 刘卫东, 刘建平, 郭猛, 等. 胸部肿瘤适形和调强常规分割放疗脊髓生物效应剂量研究[J]. 国际放射医学核医学杂志, 2018, 42(6): 518-523. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4114.2018.06.008.
Liu WD, Liu JP, Guo M, et al. The study for biological effect dose of spinal cord in thoracic tumors with the model of conformal and intensity modulated technique and conventional fractionation[J]. Int J Radiat Med Nucl Med, 2018, 42(6): 518-523. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4114.2018.06.008.[13] Lee SJ, Yeo JS, Lee HJ, et al. Thymidine phosphorylase influences [18F]fluorothymidine uptake in cancer cells and patients with non-small cell lung cancer[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2014, 41(7): 1327−1335. DOI: 10.1007/s00259−014−2712−z. [14] Wei RL, Jung BC, Manzano W, et al. Bone mineral density loss in thoracic and lumbar vertebrae following radiation for abdominal cancers[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2016, 118(3): 430−436. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.03.002. [15] Dicostanzo D, Barney CL, Bazan JG. SU-F-T-106: A Dosimetric Study of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy to Decrease Radiation Dose to the Thoracic Vertebral Bodies in Patients Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiation for Lung Cancer[J]. Med Phys, 2016, 43(6 pt 14): 3486−3486. DOI: 10.1118/1.4956242. [16] Jin JY, Huang YM, Brown SL, et al. Radiation dose-fractionation effects in spinal cord: comparison of animal and human data[J]. J Radiat Oncol, 2015, 4(3): 225−233. DOI: 10.1007/s13566−015−0212−9. [17] 于潜, 田大力, 李厚文, 等. 局限期小细胞肺癌综合治疗疗效临床对比研究[J]. 实用肿瘤杂志, 2012, 27(3): 283−286. DOI: 10.13267/j.cnki.syzlzz.2012.03.025.
Yu Q, Tian DL, Li HW, et al. Clinical contrast study on effect of multi-modality therapy for limited small-cell lung cancer[J]. J Pract Oncol, 2012, 27(3): 283−286. DOI: 10.13267/j.cnki.syzlzz.2012.03.025.[18] 林端瑜, 唐明灯, 林爱珠. 恶性肿瘤放射治疗对骨显像的影响[J]. 福建医药杂志, 2002, 24(6): 9−11. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002−2600.2002.06.006.
Lin DY, Tang MD, Lin AZ. Effect of radiotherapy for malignancy on bone scanning[J]. Fujian Med J, 2002, 24(6): 9−11. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002−2600.2002.06.006.