Is 5 mm breath-hold window (BHW) sufficient to treat carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery: a comparative study using forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Karthikeyan Kalyanasundaram ◽  
Subramani Vellaiyan
Keyword(s):  
Breathing Pattern ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Conservative Surgery ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Left Breast ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Deep Inspiration ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of changes in breathing pattern inside the breath-hold window (BHW) during deep inspiration breath hold treatment for carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery. Methods: Ten patients of carcinoma left breast post-conservative surgery were prospectively selected. Three sets of CT plain images were acquired, one with 5 mm deep inspiration BHW (DIBHR) and the other one with 1 mm BHW matching the lower threshold (DIBHL) and the third one with 1 mm BHW matching the upper threshold (DIBHH) as DIBHR. For all patients, forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated in the 5 mm BHW CT series and the same plan being copy and pasted in other series. Target volume doses and critical structure doses were tabulated. Results: Planning target volume coverage was adequate and no significant differences were found in any CT series. Significant differences noted in average left lung V5%, V10% and V18% doses between DIBHR versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0461, 0·0283 and 0·0213, respectively) and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0434, 0·0484 and 0·0334, respectively) for FIMRT plans and V18% doses in DIBHR versus DIBHH (p = 0·0067) in VMAT. No differences in heart and apex of heart doses were found. Left anterior descending artery (LAD) mean doses were significant in DIBHL versus DIBHR, DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0012, 0·0444 and 0·0048, respectively) series for FIMRT plans and DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0341, 0·0001) for VMAT plans. Finding: The changes in the breathing pattern inside DIBH window level cause some variation in LAD doses and no other significant differences in any parameters noted, so care should be taken while treating patients with preexisting cardiac conditions.

scholarly journals Od 2D do DIBH, przegląd technik radioterapeutycznych stosowanych w napromienianiu nowotworów piersi From 2D to DIBH, review of radiotherapeutic techniques related to irradiation of breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Charmacińska ◽  
Sara Styś ◽  
Olga Bąk ◽  
Weronika Kijeska ◽  
Agnieszka Skrobała
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Deep Inspiration ◽  
Deep Inspiration Breath Hold ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy

Nowotwór piersi jest to nowotwór złośliwy powstający z komórek gruczołu piersiowego, który rozwija się miejscowo w piersi oraz daje przerzuty do węzłów chłonnych i narządów wewnętrznych (płuc, wątroby, kości i mózgu). Ponad 23% zachorowań na nowotwory kobiet w Polsce, jak i na świecie stanowią nowotwory piersi. Na przestrzeni ostatnich lat techniki napromieniania nowotworów piersi ulegają ciągłemu rozwojowi. Celem pracy było poglądowe przedstawienie technik radioterapeutycznych stosowanych w napromienianiu nowotworów piersi, od dwuwymiarowej 2D techniki statycznej poprzez techniki dynamiczne (IMRT technika z modulacją intensywnością dawki (ang. intensity modulated radiation therapy), VMAT technika obrotowa z modulacją intensywności dawki (ang. volumetric modulated arc therapy), aż do techniki DIBH techniki napromieniania na głębokim wstrzymanym wdechu (ang. deep inspiration breath hold). W pracy skupiono się na przedstawieniu realizacji omawianych technik i opisie jak dana technika wpływa na rozkład dawki w planowanej objętości do napromieniania PTV (ang. Planning Target Volume) oraz na dawki w narządach krytycznych w radioterapii nowotworów piersi.

Left-sided breast radiotherapy after conservative surgery: comparison of techniques between volumetric modulated arc therapy, forward-planning intensity-modulated radiotherapy and conventional technique

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Upendra Kumar Giri ◽  
Biplab Sarkar ◽  
Kanan Jassal ◽  
Anusheel Munshi ◽  
Tharmar Ganesh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Conservative Surgery ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
Breast Radiotherapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Prescription Dose ◽  
Comparison Of Techniques

AbstractObjectiveThis study was conducted for comparison of techniques between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), forward-planning intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and conventional technique for left-sided breast radiotherapy after conservative surgery.MethodsIn all, 20 postoperative left breast carcinoma patients were included in this study. In all plans the planning target volume (PTV) was the breast tissue with appropriate margin as per our institutional protocol. The contouring was done on a Monaco Sim (V5.00.02) contouring workstation. All patient were planned using partial arc VMAT in Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) (V5.00.02) and treated on Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and FIMRT planning were done in CMS XIO (V5.00.01.1) TPS. The 3DCRT planning consisted of conventional medial and tangential wedge portals with multileaf collimator field shaping conforming to the target volume. For all the plans generated the following metrics were scored: V105%, V100%, V95%, mean dose (for PTV), V5%, V20%, D2cc and mean dose (for organs at risk).ResultsThe mean PTV volume for 20 patients was 1,074·6±405·1 cc. The highest PTV dose coverage was observed in the 3DCRT technique with 94·1±1·8% of the breast PTV receiving 95% of the prescription dose (V95%). However, it was also observed that this technique resulted in 21·3±10% of the PTV receiving more than 105% of the prescription dose (V105%), which was highest among the three techniques. In contrast, VMAT yielded lowest V95% of 93·0±1·8 and 3·3±5·5% of V105%.ConclusionThis study concluded equivalent result between FIMRT and VMAT. However, VMAT was found to be the choice of radiotherapy technique as it produces lesser dose distribution to heart compared with any other technique.

Which simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field (ff) IMRT?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-279
Author(s):  
Steven B. D. Murphy ◽  
Heather Drury-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Hybrid Technique ◽  
Fixed Field ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Concomitant Boost ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Integrated Boost

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.

Two-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy to provide dosimetric advantages for pancreas stereotactic body radiotherapy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 445-445
Author(s):  
Jason K Molitoris ◽  
Christopher Brown ◽  
Shifeng Chen ◽  
Kimberly Marter ◽  
Kristin Spaeth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Normal Tissue ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Target Coverage ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Arc Therapy

445 Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy(SBRT) is increasingly used in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). SBRT can be delivered using 3D conformal, static intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Prior data suggest advantages of using VMAT over IMRT for single-fraction pancreas SBRT. We performed the first dosimetric comparison of IMRT with one and two arc VMAT for 5-fraction pancreas SBRT, a more commonly used regimen. Methods: We generated 5-fraction SBRT plans for 12 LAPC patients who were previously treated at our institution with standard fractionation. The prescription dose was 33 Gy delivered in 6.6 Gy fractions. Assuming breath hold, 3 plans were generated for each patient: 9-beam static IMRT, 1-arc VMAT (VMAT1), and 2-arc VMAT (VMAT2) targeting the primary tumor. Target coverage and normal tissue doses were compared between the delivery techniques. Results: Each plan met target coverage planning goals. More VMAT2 plans (100%) were able to meet all normal tissue constraints than VMAT1 (83.3%) or IMRT (75%). Duodenal dose was most lowest for VMAT2 compared to VMAT1 and IMRT for mean dose (8.66 vs. 9.00 vs. 8.99 Gy); D4% (25.9 vs. 26.6 vs. 26.3 Gy); V10Gy (38.02 vs. 39.33 vs. 40.11%), V15Gy (23.98 vs. 25.88 vs. 25.97%), V20Gy (12.73 vs. 13.84 vs. 14.95%), and V25Gy (5.96 vs. 6.85 vs. 6.78%)(all p < 0.05). The tumors closest to the duodenum had statistically significantly improved V30Gy for VMAT2 compared to VMAT1 and IMRT (both p < 0.001). VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced dose to the stomach, spinal cord, and liver compared to IMRT; kidney dose, however, was lowest using IMRT. VMAT2 plans had the highest conformity, but required the most monitor units to deliver. Delivery time was significantly longer with IMRT, compared to VMAT1 and VMAT2 (8.25 vs. 2.16 vs. 3.33 mins). Conclusions: These data suggest that VMAT2 should be strongly considered for 5-fraction pancreas SBRT because of superior normal tissue sparing, more conformal target volume coverage, and faster treatment delivery time (compared to IMRT). Further evaluation is needed to clarify whether the dosimetric advantages of VMAT2 are clinically significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document