PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry of target and normal tissue when tangents with the breast tissue were applied in a subset of breast cancer patients who had undergone computed tomography (CT) planning both supine and prone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CT images of 20 patients who had undergone simulation in supine and prone positions were used for planning. The axillary lymph node regions (level I-III), breast tissue, tumor bed, heart, and bilateral lungs were manually contoured. Standard tangent fields were designed for the whole breast to deliver a prescribed dose of 50 Gy. Dose-volume histograms were compared between the two sets. RESULTS: In each patient, coverage of breast tissue and tumor bed was readily achieved by either technique. In either position, treatment of the nodal regions was inadequate. On average, the mean dose to the nodal regions for levels I-III was approximately 50% less in the prone as compared with the supine position. The mean ipsilateral lung volume receiving 95% of the prescribed dose was 6.3% in the supine position compared to 0.43% in the prone position. When planned supine, the mean heart volume receiving 30 Gy was 0.56% compared with 0.30% in the prone position. CONCLUSIONS: Planning in either position was found to achieve adequate coverage of the breast tissue and tumor bed for all patients. Lung was better spared prone. Coverage of axillary nodes was inadequate in either position, but further reduced in the prone vs. supine position. The choice of optimal setup should take into considerations stage and risk of nodal recurrence.
PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry of target and normal tissue when tangents with the breast tissue were applied in a subset of breast cancerpatients who had undergone computed tomography (CT) planning both supine and prone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CT images of 20 patients who had undergone simulation in supine and prone positions were used for planning. The axillary lymph node regions (level I-III), breast tissue, tumor bed, heart, and bilateral lungs were manually contoured. Standard tangent fields were designed for the whole breast to deliver a prescribed dose of 50 Gy. Dose-volume histograms were compared between the two sets. RESULTS: In each patient, coverage of breast tissue and tumor bed was readily achieved by either technique. In either position, treatment of the nodal regions was inadequate. On average, the mean dose to the nodal regions for levels I-III was approximately 50% less in the prone as compared with the supine position. The mean ipsilateral lung volume receiving 95% of the prescribed dose was 6.3% in the supine position compared to 0.43% in the prone position. When planned supine, the mean heart volume receiving 30 Gy was 0.56% compared with 0.30% in the prone position. CONCLUSIONS: Planning in either position was found to achieve adequate coverage of the breast tissue and tumor bed for all patients. Lung was better spared prone. Coverage of axillary nodes was inadequate in either position, but further reduced in the prone vs. supine position. The choice of optimal setup should take into considerations stage and risk of nodal recurrence.
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: Kara Lynne Leonard; David Solomon; Jaroslaw T Hepel; Jessica R Hiatt; David E Wazer; Thomas A DiPetrillo Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Pieter Deseyne; Bruno Speleers; Wilfried De Neve; Bert Boute; Leen Paelinck; Tom Van Hoof; Joris Van de Velde; Annick Van Greveling; Chris Monten; Giselle Post; Herman Depypere; Liv Veldeman Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 3.481