PURPOSE: Although previous work demonstrated superior dose distributions for left-sided breast cancer patients planned for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at deep inspiration breath hold compared with conventional techniques with free-breathing, such techniques are not always feasible to limit the impact of respiration on treatment delivery. This study assessed whether optimization based on multiple instance geometry approximation (MIGA) could derive an IMRT plan that is less sensitive to known respiratory motions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CT scans were acquired with an active breathing control device at multiple breath-hold states. Three inverse optimized plans were generated for eight left-sided breast cancer patients: one static IMRT plan optimized at end exhale, two (MIGA) plans based on a MIGA representation of normal breathing, and a MIGA representation of deep breathing, respectively. Breast and nodal targets were prescribed 52.2 Gy, and a simultaneous tumor bed boost was prescribed 60 Gy. RESULTS: With normal breathing, doses to the targets, heart, and left anterior descending (LAD) artery were equivalent whether optimizing with MIGA or on a static data set. When simulating motion due to deep breathing, optimization with MIGA appears to yield superior tumor-bed coverage, decreased LAD mean dose, and maximum heart and LAD dose compared with optimization on a static representation. CONCLUSIONS: For left-sided breast-cancer patients, inverse-based optimization accounting for motion due to normal breathing may be similar to optimization on a static data set. However, some patients may benefit from accounting for deep breathing with MIGA with improvements in tumor-bed coverage and dose to critical structures.
PURPOSE: Although previous work demonstrated superior dose distributions for left-sided breast cancerpatients planned for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at deep inspiration breath hold compared with conventional techniques with free-breathing, such techniques are not always feasible to limit the impact of respiration on treatment delivery. This study assessed whether optimization based on multiple instance geometry approximation (MIGA) could derive an IMRT plan that is less sensitive to known respiratory motions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CT scans were acquired with an active breathing control device at multiple breath-hold states. Three inverse optimized plans were generated for eight left-sided breast cancerpatients: one static IMRT plan optimized at end exhale, two (MIGA) plans based on a MIGA representation of normal breathing, and a MIGA representation of deep breathing, respectively. Breast and nodal targets were prescribed 52.2 Gy, and a simultaneous tumor bed boost was prescribed 60 Gy. RESULTS: With normal breathing, doses to the targets, heart, and left anterior descending (LAD) artery were equivalent whether optimizing with MIGA or on a static data set. When simulating motion due to deep breathing, optimization with MIGA appears to yield superior tumor-bed coverage, decreased LAD mean dose, and maximum heart and LAD dose compared with optimization on a static representation. CONCLUSIONS: For left-sided breast-cancerpatients, inverse-based optimization accounting for motion due to normal breathing may be similar to optimization on a static data set. However, some patients may benefit from accounting for deep breathing with MIGA with improvements in tumor-bed coverage and dose to critical structures.
Authors: Christoph Thilmann; Peter Häring; Lennart Thilmann; Jan Unkelbach; Bernhard Rhein; Simeon Nill; Peter Huber; Elisabeth Janisch; Christian Thieke; Jürgen Debus Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph Ragaz; Ivo A Olivotto; John J Spinelli; Norman Phillips; Stewart M Jackson; Kenneth S Wilson; Margaret A Knowling; Christopher M L Coppin; Lorna Weir; Karen Gelmon; Nhu Le; Ralph Durand; Andrew J Coldman; Mohamed Manji Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Overgaard; P S Hansen; J Overgaard; C Rose; M Andersson; F Bach; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; H T Mouridsen; M B Jensen; K Zedeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Editha A Krueger; Matthew J Schipper; Todd Koelling; Robin B Marsh; James B Butler; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mary Feng; James M Balter; Daniel Normolle; Saroja Adusumilli; Yue Cao; Thomas L Chenevert; Edgar Ben-Josef Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Sedlmayer; M-L Sautter-Bihl; W Budach; J Dunst; G Fastner; P Feyer; R Fietkau; W Haase; W Harms; R Souchon; F Wenz; R Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.621