Whole breast radiotherapy with concomitant boost using standard treatment technique provides dosimetric outcomes comparable to techniques using intensity modulated radiotherapy

Author(s):  
J HORTON ◽  
J HALLE ◽  
S CHANG ◽  
C SARTOR
2019 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 518-523
Author(s):  
Rosalinda Ricotti ◽  
Eleonora Miglietta ◽  
Maria Cristina Leonardi ◽  
Federica Cattani ◽  
Samantha Dicuonzo ◽  
...  

Objective: To report treatment times (door to door) of adjuvant treatments of breast cancer (BC) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: Treatment times of 62 patients with BC on the TomoTherapy Hi-Art System were collected for the analysis. Patients underwent either locoregional radiotherapy (postmastectomy radiotherapy [PMRT]) with helical modality (TomoHelical) or whole breast radiotherapy (RT) with simultaneous integrated boost (WBRT-SIB) with direct modality (TomoDirect). Door-to-door time was broken down into different steps, which were crucial to RT session. Results: A total of 594 treatment fractions were monitored. Median treatment time was 22.4 minutes (17.2–30.8) for PMRT and 14.4 minutes (10.9–23.5) for WBRT-SIB. The mean beam-on time accounted for 61.36% of the overall treatment time for PMRT compared to 57% for WBRT-SIB. The beam-on time was a much more time-consuming process. Conclusion: This treatment times analysis on the use of IMRT for BC might be useful to organize and improve the workflow efficiency in RT facilities.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-279
Author(s):  
Steven B. D. Murphy ◽  
Heather Drury-Smith

AbstractBackground and purposeTo determine which concomitant boost technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT).Materials and methodsIn total, 30 breast patients were re-planned with both VMAT and fixed field concomitant boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. A hybrid technique was used delivering 80% of the dose through tangential beams and 20% through an integrated boost. A two-tailed t-test sample for means was used to compare the dosimetric differences between the techniques.ResultsMaximum dose was statistically lower for VMAT; 103·2 versus 103·7% for ff-IMRT along with statistically lower V2 Gy doses to the contralateral lung (0·7 versus 1·6%) and heart for both left- (19·0%/22·6%), and right- (5·5%/8·8%) sided patients, respectively. ff-IMRT boasted significantly lower ipsilateral lung V20, V18 and V10 Gy (7·9/8·6/13·1 versus 8·1/8·8/13·4%) than VMAT, respectively. No differences were found with minimum coverage, mean dose and V5 Gy to all organs at risk (OARs).ConclusionVMAT and ff-IMRT techniques demonstrate excellent target coverage and OAR sparing facilitated by the hybrid planning technique and deep inspiration breath hold. There is no obvious dosimetrically superior option between the two techniques. Reduced treatment times with VMAT make it more desirable to implement clinically.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document