PURPOSE: Prone-position breast radiotherapy (RT) has been described as an alternative technique to improve dose homogeneity for women with large, pendulous breasts. We report the feasibility and dosimetric analysis of a simplified intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) technique, previously reported for women in the supine treatment position, to plan prone-position RT to the intact breast. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients with clinical Stage TisN0-T1bN1 breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving therapy underwent whole breast RT using a prone position technique. The treatment plans were developed using both conventional tangents and a simplified intensity-modulated tangential beam technique based on optimization of the intensity distributions across the breast. The plans were compared with regard to the dose-volume parameters. RESULTS: Dose heterogeneity within the breast planning target volume was significantly greater for the conventional tangent plans. Of 20 patients, 16 (80%) received maximal doses of > or =110% using the conventional tangents vs. only 1 (5%) using the IMRT plan. The isodose level encompassing 5% of the planning target volume was reduced from an average of 110% with conventional tangents to 105% with IMRT. The maximal dose within the planning target volume was reduced from an average of 114% with conventional tangents to 107% with IMRT. The greatest improvement was seen in the patients with the most pendulous breasts. CONCLUSION: An IMRT planning approach is feasible for prone-position breast RT and improves dose homogeneity, particularly in women with larger, pendulous breasts. Additional follow-up is necessary to determine whether the improvements in dose homogeneity impact acute toxicity and cosmetic outcome in this cohort of women who have historically suffered from poor cosmesis after breast-conserving therapy.
PURPOSE: Prone-position breast radiotherapy (RT) has been described as an alternative technique to improve dose homogeneity for women with large, pendulous breasts. We report the feasibility and dosimetric analysis of a simplified intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) technique, previously reported for women in the supine treatment position, to plan prone-position RT to the intact breast. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients with clinical Stage TisN0-T1bN1 breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving therapy underwent whole breast RT using a prone position technique. The treatment plans were developed using both conventional tangents and a simplified intensity-modulated tangential beam technique based on optimization of the intensity distributions across the breast. The plans were compared with regard to the dose-volume parameters. RESULTS: Dose heterogeneity within the breast planning target volume was significantly greater for the conventional tangent plans. Of 20 patients, 16 (80%) received maximal doses of > or =110% using the conventional tangents vs. only 1 (5%) using the IMRT plan. The isodose level encompassing 5% of the planning target volume was reduced from an average of 110% with conventional tangents to 105% with IMRT. The maximal dose within the planning target volume was reduced from an average of 114% with conventional tangents to 107% with IMRT. The greatest improvement was seen in the patients with the most pendulous breasts. CONCLUSION: An IMRT planning approach is feasible for prone-position breast RT and improves dose homogeneity, particularly in women with larger, pendulous breasts. Additional follow-up is necessary to determine whether the improvements in dose homogeneity impact acute toxicity and cosmetic outcome in this cohort of women who have historically suffered from poor cosmesis after breast-conserving therapy.
Authors: Guang-Pei Chen; Feng Liu; Julia White; Frank A Vicini; Gary M Freedman; Douglas W Arthur; X Allen Li Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: John Ng; Igor Shuryak; Yanguang Xu; K S Clifford Chao; David J Brenner; Ryan J Burri Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E Fernández-Lizarbe; A Montero; A Polo; R Hernanz; R Morís; S Formenti; A Ramos Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Thomas Mulliez; Bruno Speleers; Indira Madani; Werner De Gersem; Liv Veldeman; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.481