Dosimetric comparisons between high dose rate interstitial and MammoSite balloon brachytherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: To make a quantitative dosimetric comparison between treatment plans of multicatheter-based interstitial brachytherapy (IB) and MammoSite brachytherapy (MSB) for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients treated with IB and twenty-four with MSB were selected for the study. The irradiations for IB patients were planned using conventional two-film reconstruction technique. Following the implantation each patient was CT scanned, then the planning target volume (PTV) was retrospectively defined on the CT data set, and the original plan was reconstructed (CONV plans). Furthermore, conformal plans were also created by dose optimization on target (CONF plans). The planning for MammoSite applicator was based on CT imaging. The dose distributions were evaluated with dose-volume histograms. The following parameters were calculated and compared: volume of the PTV and its percentage receiving 90, 100, 150 and 200% of the prescribed dose (V90, V100, V150 and V200, respectively), percentage dose covering 90% of the PTV (D90), minimum dose in the PTV (D(min)), maximum dose in the PTV (D(max)) for MSB only, dose homogeneity index (DHI), and conformal index (COIN). To assess the dose to organs at risk maximum point dose to skin, lung and heart was used.
RESULTS: The median number of implanted catheters for IB was 11 (range: 6-13), the average balloon volume for MSB was 59.1cm(3) (range: 43.4-75.3 cm(3)). The average volume of PTV was 63.4 and 109.6 cm(3) for IB and MSB patients, respectively. The average V90, V100, V150, V200 were 76, 70, 26 and 9% for IB(CONV); 92, 87, 55 and 32% for IB(CONF) and 96, 88, 27 and 3% for MSB, respectively. The average D90 was 72, 94 and 99%, the D(min) was 47, 58 and 67%, respectively. The mean D(max) was 258% for MSB. The average DHI was 0.63, 0.37 and 0.70 for IB(CONV), IB(CONF) and MSB, respectively. D(max) to skin, lung and heart were 45, 54 and 31% for IB(CONV), 50, 55 and 29% for IB(CONF,) 97, 66 and 27% for MSB, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Target volume coverage was better for MSB than conventional IB, and it was comparable to conformal IB. The suboptimal coverage for IB patients is due to radiography based planning, which is unable to provide 3D information of the target. Dose homogeneity was somewhat better for MSB than IB(CONV), but the dose to skin and lung was higher for MSB. The MSB provides dosimetrically acceptable dose plans. The quality of interstitial implants can be improved with image-guided catheter insertions regarding both homogeneity and conformality.