Dosimetric Comparison of Organs at Risk With Deep Inspiration Breath-Hold Versus Free Breathing for Left -Sided Breast Cancer

Author(s):  
S. Hunugundmath ◽  
S. Chintam ◽  
K. Darekar ◽  
V. Naik
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the radiation dose to organs at risk for deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and free-breathing (FB) radiotherapy in patients with lef-sided breast cancer undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy after partial mastectomy. Methods: One hundred patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent DIBH and FB planning computed tomography scans, and the 2 techniques were compared. Dose-volume histograms were analyzed for heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), and left lung. Results: Radiation dose to heart, LAD, and left lung was significantly lower for DIBH than for free breathing plans. The median mean heart dose for DIBH technique in comparison with FB was 1.21 Gy, and 3.22 Gy respectively; for LAD, 4.67 versus 24.71 Gy; and for left lung 8.32 Gy versus 9.99 Gy. Conclusion: DIBH is an effective technique to reduce cardiac and lung radiation exposure.


BJR|Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 20200067
Author(s):  
Orla Anne Houlihan ◽  
Guhan Rangaswamy ◽  
Mary Dunne ◽  
Christine Rohan ◽  
Louise O'Neill ◽  
...  

Objective: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of lymphoma and many patients with lymphoma are cured with treatment. Risk of secondary malignancy and long-term cardiac and pulmonary toxicity from mediastinal radiotherapy exists. Delivery of radiotherapy using a deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique increases lung volume and has the potential to reduce dose to heart and lungs. We undertook a prospective study to assess the dosimetric differences in DIBH and free breathing (FB) plans in patients requiring mediastinal radiotherapy in clinical practice. Methods: We performed both FB and DIBH planning scans on 35 consecutive patients with mediastinal lymphoma needing radiotherapy. Contours and plans were generated for both data sets and dosimetric data were compared. All patients were planned using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Data were compared for FB and DIBH plans with each patient acting as their own control using the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: DIBH significantly reduced lung doses (mean 10.6 vs 11.4Gy, p < 0.0005; V20 16.8 vs 18.3%, p = 0.001) and spinal cord maximum dose (20.6 vs 22.8Gy, p = 0.001). DIBH increased breast V4 (38.5% vs 31.8%, p = 0.006) and mean right breast dose (4.2 vs 3.6Gy, p = 0.010). There was no significant difference in heart doses when the entire study cohort was considered, however, mean heart dose tended to be lower with DIBH for upper mediastinal (UM) tumours (4.3 vs 4.9Gy, p = 0.05). Conclusion: Our study describes the potential benefit of DIBH in a population reflective of clinical practice. DIBH can decrease radiation dose to lungs, heart and spinal cord, however, may increase dose to breasts. DIBH is not always superior to FB, and the clinical significance of differences in dose to organs at risk in addition to the time required to treat patients with DIBH must be considered when deciding the most appropriate radiotherapy technique for each patient. Advances in knowledge: To our knowledge, this is the largest study comparing DIBH and FB planning for patients with lymphoma receiving mediastinal radiotherapy in clinical practice. It demonstrates the impact of an increasingly common radiotherapy technique on dose to organs at risk and the subsequent potential for long-term radiotherapy side-effects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document