PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry of proton and photon-electron three-dimensional, conformal, external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (3D-CPBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four patients with fully excised, Stage I breast cancer treated with adjuvant proton 3D-CPBI had treatment plans generated using the mixed-modality, photon-electron 3D-CPBI technique. To facilitate dosimetric comparisons, planning target volumes (PTVs; lumpectomy site plus 1.5-2.0 cm margin) and prescribed dose (32 Gy) were held constant. Plans were optimized for PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. RESULTS: Proton and mixed-modality plans both provided acceptable PTV coverage with 95% of the PTV receiving 90% of the prescribed dose in all cases. Both techniques also provided excellent dose homogeneity with a dose maximum exceeding 110% of the prescribed dose in only one case. Proton 3D-CPBI reduced the volume of nontarget breast tissue receiving 50% of the prescribed dose by an average of 36%. Statistically significant reductions in the volume of total ipsilateral breast receiving 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of the prescribed dose were also observed. The use of protons resulted in small, but statistically significant, reductions in the radiation dose delivered to 5%, 10%, and 20% of ipsilateral and contralateral lung and heart. The nontarget breast tissue dosimetric advantages of proton 3D-CPBI were not dependent on tumor location, breast size, PTV size, or the ratio of PTV to breast volume. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to photon-electron 3D-CPBI, proton 3D-CPBI significantly reduces the volume of irradiated nontarget breast tissue. Both approaches to accelerated partial breast irradiation offer exceptional lung and heart sparing.
PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry of proton and photon-electron three-dimensional, conformal, external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (3D-CPBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four patients with fully excised, Stage I breast cancer treated with adjuvant proton 3D-CPBI had treatment plans generated using the mixed-modality, photon-electron 3D-CPBI technique. To facilitate dosimetric comparisons, planning target volumes (PTVs; lumpectomy site plus 1.5-2.0 cm margin) and prescribed dose (32 Gy) were held constant. Plans were optimized for PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. RESULTS: Proton and mixed-modality plans both provided acceptable PTV coverage with 95% of the PTV receiving 90% of the prescribed dose in all cases. Both techniques also provided excellent dose homogeneity with a dose maximum exceeding 110% of the prescribed dose in only one case. Proton 3D-CPBI reduced the volume of nontarget breast tissue receiving 50% of the prescribed dose by an average of 36%. Statistically significant reductions in the volume of total ipsilateral breast receiving 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of the prescribed dose were also observed. The use of protons resulted in small, but statistically significant, reductions in the radiation dose delivered to 5%, 10%, and 20% of ipsilateral and contralateral lung and heart. The nontarget breast tissue dosimetric advantages of proton 3D-CPBI were not dependent on tumor location, breast size, PTV size, or the ratio of PTV to breast volume. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to photon-electron 3D-CPBI, proton 3D-CPBI significantly reduces the volume of irradiated nontarget breast tissue. Both approaches to accelerated partial breast irradiation offer exceptional lung and heart sparing.
Authors: Xiaochun Wang; Richard A Amos; Xiaodong Zhang; Phillip J Taddei; Wendy A Woodward; Karen E Hoffman; Tse Kuan Yu; Welela Tereffe; Julia Oh; George H Perkins; Mohammad Salehpour; Sean X Zhang; Tzou Liang Sun; Michael Gillin; Thomas A Buchholz; Eric A Strom Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniela Alterio; Eliana La Rocca; Maria Cristina Leonardi; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Stefania Volpe; Anna Maria Camarda; Alessia Casbarra; William Russell-Edu; Maria Alessia Zerella; Roberto Orecchia; Viviana Galimberti; Paolo Veronesi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Merav A Ben-David; Jean M Moran; Robin B Marsh; Kent A Griffith; James A Hayman; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038