Chenbin Liu
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Chenbin Liu has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Kailian Kang
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 113 Baohe Road, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518116, China
1 shared publication - Meiling Xu
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 113 Baohe Road, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518116, China
1 shared publication - Qi Zeng
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 113 Baohe Road, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518116, China
1 shared publication - Xiaoyong Xiang
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, China
1 shared publication - Zhen Ding
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, China
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 24 March 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Bioengineering
- Vol. 9 (4) , 131
Evaluation of Plan Robustness Using Hybrid Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Arc Modulation Radiotherapy (VMAT) for Left-Sided Breast Cancer
Purpose: We aim to evaluate the robustness of multi-field IMRT and VMAT plans to target motion for left-sided BC radiotherapy. Methods: The 7-field hybrid IMRT (7F-H-IMRT) and 2-arc VMAT (2A-VMAT) plans were generated for ten left-sided BC patients. Shifts of 3 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm in six directions were introduced and the perturbed dose distributions were recalculated. The dose differences (∆D) of the original plan and perturbed plan corresponded to the plan robustness for the structure. Results: Higher ∆D98%, ∆D95%, and ∆Dmean of CTV were observed in 2A-VMAT plans, which induced higher tumor control probability reductions. A higher ∆Dmean of CTV Boost was found in 7F-H-IMRT plans despite lower ∆D98% and ∆D95%. Shifts in the S-I direction exerted the largest effect on CTV and CTV Boost. Regarding OARs, shifts in R, P, and I directions contributed to increasing the received dose. The 2A-VMAT plans performed better dose sparing, but had a higher robustness in a high-dose volume of the left lung and heart. The 2A-VMAT plans decreased the max dose of LAD but exhibited lower robustness. Conclusion: The 2A-VMAT plans showed higher sensitivity to position deviation. Shifts in the S-I direction exerted the largest effect for CTV and CTV Boost.
- 24 March 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Bioengineering
- Vol. 9 (4) , 131
Open AccessEvaluation of Plan Robustness Using Hybrid Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Arc Modulation Radiotherapy (VMAT) for Left-Sided Breast Cancer
Purpose: We aim to evaluate the robustness of multi-field IMRT and VMAT plans to target motion for left-sided BC radiotherapy. Methods: The 7-field hybrid IMRT (7F-H-IMRT) and 2-arc VMAT (2A-VMAT) plans were generated for ten left-sided BC patients. Shifts of 3 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm in six directions were introduced and the perturbed dose distributions were recalculated. The dose differences (∆D) of the original plan and perturbed plan corresponded to the plan robustness for the structure. Results: Higher ∆D98%, ∆D95%, and ∆Dmean of CTV were observed in 2A-VMAT plans, which induced higher tumor control probability reductions. A higher ∆Dmean of CTV Boost was found in 7F-H-IMRT plans despite lower ∆D98% and ∆D95%. Shifts in the S-I direction exerted the largest effect on CTV and CTV Boost. Regarding OARs, shifts in R, P, and I directions contributed to increasing the received dose. The 2A-VMAT plans performed better dose sparing, but had a higher robustness in a high-dose volume of the left lung and heart. The 2A-VMAT plans decreased the max dose of LAD but exhibited lower robustness. Conclusion: The 2A-VMAT plans showed higher sensitivity to position deviation. Shifts in the S-I direction exerted the largest effect for CTV and CTV Boost.