PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of skin-sparing by configuring it as an organ-at-risk (OAR) while delivering whole-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in early breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Archival computed tomography scan images of 14 left-sided early-breast tumor patients who had undergone lumpectomy were selected for this study. Skin was contoured as a 4- to 5-mm strip extending from the patient outline to anterior margin of the breast planning target volume (PTV). Two IMRT plans were generated by the helical tomotherapy approach to deliver 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast alone: one with skin dose constraints (skin-sparing plan) and the other without (non-skin-sparing plan). Comparison of the plans was done using a two-sided paired Student t test. RESULTS: The mean skin dose and volume of skin receiving 50 Gy were significantly less with the skin-sparing plan compared with non-skin-sparing plan (42.3 Gy vs. 47.7 Gy and 12.2% vs. 57.8% respectively; p < 0.001). The reduction in skin dose was confirmed by TLD measurements in anthropomorphic phantom using the same plans. Dose-volume analyses for other OARs were similar in both plans. CONCLUSIONS: By configuring the skin as an OAR, it is possible to achieve skin dose reduction while delivering whole-breast IMRT without compromising dose profiles to PTV and OARs.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of skin-sparing by configuring it as an organ-at-risk (OAR) while delivering whole-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in early breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Archival computed tomography scan images of 14 left-sided early-breast tumorpatients who had undergone lumpectomy were selected for this study. Skin was contoured as a 4- to 5-mm strip extending from the patient outline to anterior margin of the breast planning target volume (PTV). Two IMRT plans were generated by the helical tomotherapy approach to deliver 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast alone: one with skin dose constraints (skin-sparing plan) and the other without (non-skin-sparing plan). Comparison of the plans was done using a two-sided paired Student t test. RESULTS: The mean skin dose and volume of skin receiving 50 Gy were significantly less with the skin-sparing plan compared with non-skin-sparing plan (42.3 Gy vs. 47.7 Gy and 12.2% vs. 57.8% respectively; p < 0.001). The reduction in skin dose was confirmed by TLD measurements in anthropomorphic phantom using the same plans. Dose-volume analyses for other OARs were similar in both plans. CONCLUSIONS: By configuring the skin as an OAR, it is possible to achieve skin dose reduction while delivering whole-breast IMRT without compromising dose profiles to PTV and OARs.
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: Hyo Chun Lee; Sung Hwan Kim; Young Jin Suh; Mi Joo Chung; Dae Gyu Kang; Hyun Joo Choi; Jong Hoon Lee Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.481