Literature DB >> 18262117

Assessment and minimization of contralateral breast dose for conventional and intensity modulated breast radiotherapy.

Jay Burmeister1, Nicole Alvarado, Sarah Way, Patrick McDermott, Todd Bossenberger, Harriett Jaenisch, Rajiv Patel, Tara Washington.   

Abstract

Breast radiotherapy is associated with an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) in women under age 45 at the time of treatment. This risk increases with increasing absorbed dose to the contralateral breast. The use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is expected to substantially reduce the dose to the contralateral breast by eliminating scattered radiation from physical beam modifiers. The absorbed dose to the contralateral breast was measured for 5 common radiotherapy techniques, including paired 15 degrees wedges, lateral 30 degrees wedge only, custom-designed physical compensators, aperture based (field-within-field) IMRT with segments chosen by the planner, and inverse planned IMRT with segments chosen by a leaf sequencing algorithm after dose volume histogram (DVH)-based fluence map optimization. Further reduction in contralateral breast dose through the use of lead shielding was also investigated. While shielding was observed to have the most profound impact on surface dose, the radiotherapy technique proved to be most important in determining internal dose. Paired wedges or compensators result in the highest contralateral breast doses (nearly 10% of the prescription dose on the medial surface), while use of IMRT or removal of the medial wedge results in significantly lower doses. Aperture-based IMRT results in the lowest internal doses, primarily due to the decrease in the number of monitor units required and the associated reduction in leakage dose. The use of aperture-based IMRT reduced the average dose to the contralateral breast by greater than 50% in comparison to wedges or compensators. Combined use of IMRT and 1/8-inch-thick lead shielding reduced the dose to the interior and surface of the contralateral breast by roughly 60% and 85%, respectively. This reduction may warrant the use of IMRT for younger patients who have a statistically significant risk of contralateral breast cancer associated with breast radiotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18262117     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2007.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  5 in total

1.  Field-in-field IMRT versus 3D-CRT of the breast. Cardiac vessels, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral breast absorbed doses in patients with left-sided lumpectomy: a dosimetric comparison.

Authors:  Duygu Baycan; Didem Karacetin; Ayben Y Balkanay; Yücel Barut
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Comparison of dose distributions and organs at risk (OAR) doses in conventional tangential technique (CTT) and IMRT plans with different numbers of beam in left-sided breast cancer.

Authors:  Hande Bas Ayata; Metin Güden; Cemile Ceylan; Nadir Kücük; Kayihan Engin
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2011-04-08

3.  Tangential beam IMRT versus tangential beam 3D-CRT of the chest wall in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: a dosimetric comparison.

Authors:  Volker Rudat; Abdul Aziz Alaradi; Adel Mohamed; Khaled Ai-Yahya; Saleh Altuwaijri
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Evaluation of surface and shallow depth dose reductions using a Superflab bolus during conventional and advanced external beam radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jihyung Yoon; Yibo Xie; Rui Zhang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Forward-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy using a cobalt source: A dosimetric study in breast cancer.

Authors:  Savino Cilla; Joseph Kigula-Mugambe; Cinzia Digesù; Gabriella Macchia; Solomon Bogale; Mariangela Massaccesi; David Dawotola; Francesco Deodato; Milly Buwenge; Luciana Caravatta; Angelo Piermattei; Vincenzo Valentini; Alessio G Morganti
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2013-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.