Dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for left-sided chest wall and lymphatic irradiation.
Female
Humans
Lymphatic Irradiation
/ methods
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Conformal
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Thoracic Wall
/ radiation effects
Unilateral Breast Neoplasms
/ radiotherapy
breast cancer
chest wall irradiation
intensity-modulated radiotherapy
lymphatic irradiation
three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
16
01
2018
revised:
05
09
2018
accepted:
07
10
2018
pubmed:
5
11
2019
medline:
4
6
2020
entrez:
5
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare five different techniques for chest wall (CW) and lymphatic irradiation in patients with left-sided breast carcinoma. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), forward-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FP-IMRT), inverse-planned IMRT (IP-IMRT; 7- or 9-field), and hybrid IP-/FP-IMRT were compared in 10 patients. Clinical target volume (CTV) included CW and internal mammary (IM), supraclavicular (SC), and axillary nodes. Planning target volumes (PTVs), CTVs, and organs at risks (OARs) doses were analyzed with dose-volume histograms (DVHs). No differences could be observed among the techniques for doses received by 95% of the volume (D95%) of lymphatics. However, the FP-IMRT resulted in a significantly lower D95% dose to the CW-PTV compared to other techniques (P = 0.002). The 9-field IP-IMRT achieved the lowest volumes receiving higher doses (hotspots). Both IP-IMRT techniques provided similar mean doses (Dmean) for the left lung which were smaller than the other techniques. There was no difference between the techniques for maximum dose (Dmax) of right breast. However, FP-IMRT resulted in lower Dmean and volume of right breast receiving at least 5 Gy doses compared to other techniques. The dose homogeneity in CW-CTV was better using IMRT techniques compared to 3DCRT. Especially 9-field IP-IMRT provided a more homogeneous dose distribution in IM and axillary CTVs. Moreover, the OARs volumes receiving low radiation doses were larger with IP-IMRT technique, while volumes receiving high radiation doses were larger with FP-IMRT technique. Hybrid IMRT plans were found to have the advantages of both FP- and IP-IMRT techniques.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31680445
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12757
pmc: PMC6909119
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36-44Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
J Breast Health. 2014 Apr 1;10(2):106-110
pubmed: 28331653
Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1707-16
pubmed: 22019144
Radiother Oncol. 2000 Mar;54(3):209-12
pubmed: 10738078
Radiol Clin North Am. 1971 Dec;9(3):511-31
pubmed: 5001977
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jul 15;56(4):1023-37
pubmed: 12829138
Breast Cancer Res. 2011 Apr 04;13(2):R38
pubmed: 21463502
Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 21;5:12274
pubmed: 26194593
Radiother Oncol. 2007 Mar;82(3):254-64
pubmed: 17224195
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Dec 1;54(5):1336-44
pubmed: 12459355
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2016 Jan;26(1):71-8
pubmed: 26617212
Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2087-106
pubmed: 16360786
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Apr 1;52(5):1220-30
pubmed: 11955732
Med Dosim. 2009 Spring;34(1):42-50
pubmed: 19181255
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jan 1;46(1):187-94
pubmed: 10656392
Radiother Oncol. 2007 Mar;82(3):324-8
pubmed: 17157944
Radiat Res. 2003 Dec;160(6):707-17
pubmed: 14640793
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):83-8
pubmed: 12694826
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Sep;76(3):311-8
pubmed: 16153728
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Dec 1;48(5):1559-68
pubmed: 11121662
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jan 20;34(3):235-43
pubmed: 26573075
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Dec 1;78(5):1594-603
pubmed: 20832186
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Aug 1;68(5):1375-80
pubmed: 17544598
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003 Jan;45(1):55-75
pubmed: 12482572
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Aug 1;48(1):139-46
pubmed: 10924983
Ann Oncol. 2011 May;22(5):1120-6
pubmed: 21097554
Radiat Res. 2003 Oct;160(4):381-407
pubmed: 12968934
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 1;26(13):2085-92
pubmed: 18285602
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98
pubmed: 23484825
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jul 15;68(4):1238-50
pubmed: 17512134