Four irradiation and three positioning techniques for whole-breast radiotherapy: Is sophisticated always better?
DIBH
IMAT
breast cancer
multi-beam
prone
prone crawl
radiotherapy
supine
tangential fields
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:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
revised:
12
06
2022
received:
21
01
2022
accepted:
23
06
2022
pubmed:
16
9
2022
medline:
24
11
2022
entrez:
15
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We report on a dosimetrical study of three patient positions (supine, prone dive, and prone crawl) and four irradiation techniques for whole-breast irradiation (WBI): wedged-tangential fields (W-TF), tangential-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT), multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT), and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). This is the first study to evaluate prone crawl positioning in WBI and the first study to quantify dosimetrical and anatomical differences with prone dive positioning. We analyzed five datasets with left- and right-sided patients (n = 51). One dataset also included deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) data. A total of 252 new treatment plans were composed. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs). Furthermore, anatomical differences among patient positions were quantified to explain dosimetrical differences. Target coverage was inferior for W-TF and supine position. W-TF proved overall inferior, and IMAT proved foremost effective in supine position. TF-IMRT proved competitive to the more demanding MB-IMRT and IMAT in prone dive, but not in prone crawl position. The lung-sparing effect was overall confirmed for both prone dive and prone crawl positioning and was largest for prone crawl. For the heart, no differences were found between prone dive and supine positioning, whereas prone crawl showed cardiac advantages, although minor compared to the established heart-sparing effect of DIBH. Dose differences for contralateral breast were minor among the patient positions. In prone crawl position, the ipsilateral breast sags deeper and the PTV is further away from the OARs than in prone dive position. The prone dive and prone crawl position are valid alternatives to the supine position in WBI, with largest advantages for lung structures. For the heart, differences are small, which establishes the role of DIBH in different patient positions. These results may be of particular interest to radiotherapy centers with limited technical resources.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36106550
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13720
pmc: PMC9680580
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13720Subventions
Organisme : Fondation contre le Cancer (Stichting tegen kanker)
ID : FAF-C/2018/1190
Organisme : Fondation contre le Cancer (Stichting tegen kanker)
ID : C_2020_1377
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2005 Aug;6(8):557-65
pubmed: 16054566
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jan 15;108(1):179-82
pubmed: 23257897
Radiother Oncol. 2007 Mar;82(3):341-8
pubmed: 17207547
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Nov 1;60(3):794-806
pubmed: 15465196
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Sep 1;78(1):111-8
pubmed: 20137868
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Nov;152:111-116
pubmed: 32600774
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):2055-64
pubmed: 21570208
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 May 21;100(20):e26000
pubmed: 34011096
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Sep 1;75(1):94-100
pubmed: 19304405
Front Oncol. 2011 Oct 11;1:31
pubmed: 22655240
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Dec 1;51(5):1371-88
pubmed: 11728699
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 16;11(1):6085
pubmed: 33727599
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 15;57(4):1019-32
pubmed: 14575833
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Oct;195(10):861-871
pubmed: 31321461
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Apr;197(4):317-331
pubmed: 33416915
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jul 1;89(3):448-57
pubmed: 24751411
Sci Rep. 2022 Feb 3;12(1):1887
pubmed: 35115610
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 1;51(3):849-59
pubmed: 11699497
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Jan;114(1):66-72
pubmed: 25739317
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Nov;9(6):e579-e590
pubmed: 31283990
Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 18;8(1):15354
pubmed: 30337718
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jan 09;10:9
pubmed: 25572707
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jan;126(1):148-154
pubmed: 29246585
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014 Mar-Apr;4(2):123-129
pubmed: 24890353
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Aug;108(2):203-8
pubmed: 24044803
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 1;57(3):891-9
pubmed: 14529796
JAMA. 2012 Sep 5;308(9):861-3
pubmed: 22948692
Acta Oncol. 2014 Apr;53(4):521-9
pubmed: 24495044
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 1;70(3):916-20
pubmed: 18262103
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 15;72(4):1021-30
pubmed: 18556141
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 20;35(15):1641-1649
pubmed: 28319436
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Jul;19(4):195-204
pubmed: 29927027
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Nov;23(11):e13720
pubmed: 36106550
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Aug;96(2):178-84
pubmed: 20561695
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jun 24;8:151
pubmed: 23800109
Front Oncol. 2021 Aug 09;11:713328
pubmed: 34434899
Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2087-106
pubmed: 16360786
Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 18;9(1):4755
pubmed: 30894606
Radiat Oncol. 2017 May 26;12(1):89
pubmed: 28549483
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Jul;18(4):200-205
pubmed: 28649708
Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 11;12(1):525
pubmed: 35017568
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Nov 15;84(4):902-9
pubmed: 22494590
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 2;10(1):16376
pubmed: 33009448
Tumori. 2009 May-Jun;95(3):394-7
pubmed: 19688985
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98
pubmed: 23484825
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Jan;114(1):79-84
pubmed: 25497557