PURPOSE: To establish optimal intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for treating the left breast and regional nodes, using moderate deep-inspiration breath hold. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed four IMRT plans of differing complexity for each of 10 patients following lumpectomy for left breast cancer. A dose of 60 Gy was prescribed to the boost planning target volume (PTV) and 52.2 Gy to the breast and supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and internal mammary nodes. Two plans used inverse-planned beamlet techniques: a 9-field technique, with nine equispaced axial beams, and a tangential beamlet technique, with three to five ipsilateral beams. The third plan (a segmental technique) used a forward-planned multisegment technique, and the fourth plan (a segmental blocked technique) was identical but included a block to limit heart dose. Dose--volume histograms were generated, and metrics chosen for comparison were analyzed using the paired t test. RESULTS: Mean heart and left anterior descending coronary artery doses were similar with the tangential beamlet and segmental blocked techniques but higher with the segmental and 9-field techniques (mean paired difference of 15.1 Gy between segmental and tangential beamlet techniques, p < 0.001). Substantial volumes of contralateral tissue received dose with the 9-field technique (mean right breast V2, 58.9%; mean right lung V2, 75.3%). Minimum dose to ≥95% of breast PTV was, on average, 45.9 Gy with tangential beamlet, 45.0 Gy with segmental blocked, 51.4 Gy with segmental, and 50.2 Gy with 9-field techniques. Coverage of the internal mammary region was substantially better with the two beamlet techniques than with the segmental blocked technique. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the 9-field beamlet and segmental techniques, a tangential beamlet IMRT technique reduced exposure to normal tissues and maintained reasonable target coverage.
PURPOSE: To establish optimal intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for treating the left breast and regional nodes, using moderate deep-inspiration breath hold. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed four IMRT plans of differing complexity for each of 10 patients following lumpectomy for left breast cancer. A dose of 60 Gy was prescribed to the boost planning target volume (PTV) and 52.2 Gy to the breast and supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and internal mammary nodes. Two plans used inverse-planned beamlet techniques: a 9-field technique, with nine equispaced axial beams, and a tangential beamlet technique, with three to five ipsilateral beams. The third plan (a segmental technique) used a forward-planned multisegment technique, and the fourth plan (a segmental blocked technique) was identical but included a block to limit heart dose. Dose--volume histograms were generated, and metrics chosen for comparison were analyzed using the paired t test. RESULTS: Mean heart and left anterior descending coronary artery doses were similar with the tangential beamlet and segmental blocked techniques but higher with the segmental and 9-field techniques (mean paired difference of 15.1 Gy between segmental and tangential beamlet techniques, p < 0.001). Substantial volumes of contralateral tissue received dose with the 9-field technique (mean right breast V2, 58.9%; mean right lung V2, 75.3%). Minimum dose to ≥95% of breast PTV was, on average, 45.9 Gy with tangential beamlet, 45.0 Gy with segmental blocked, 51.4 Gy with segmental, and 50.2 Gy with 9-field techniques. Coverage of the internal mammary region was substantially better with the two beamlet techniques than with the segmental blocked technique. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the 9-field beamlet and segmental techniques, a tangential beamlet IMRT technique reduced exposure to normal tissues and maintained reasonable target coverage.
Authors: Nesrin Dogan; Laurie Cuttino; Rick Lloyd; Edward A Bump; Douglas W Arthur Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 7.038
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: L L Kestin; M B Sharpe; R C Frazier; F A Vicini; D Yan; R C Matter; A A Martinez; J W Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Marilyn Stovall; Susan A Smith; Bryan M Langholz; John D Boice; Roy E Shore; Michael Andersson; Thomas A Buchholz; Marinela Capanu; Leslie Bernstein; Charles F Lynch; Kathleen E Malone; Hoda Anton-Culver; Robert W Haile; Barry S Rosenstein; Anne S Reiner; Duncan C Thomas; Jonine L Bernstein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-06-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carolyn Taylor; Candace Correa; Frances K Duane; Marianne C Aznar; Stewart J Anderson; Jonas Bergh; David Dodwell; Marianne Ewertz; Richard Gray; Reshma Jagsi; Lori Pierce; Kathleen I Pritchard; Sandra Swain; Zhe Wang; Yaochen Wang; Tim Whelan; Richard Peto; Paul McGale Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John J Cuaron; Brian Chon; Henry Tsai; Anuj Goenka; David DeBlois; Alice Ho; Simon Powell; Eugen Hug; Oren Cahlon Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eugene Chung; James R Corbett; Jean M Moran; Kent A Griffith; Robin B Marsh; Mary Feng; Reshma Jagsi; Marc L Kessler; Edward C Ficaro; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Karolina Jezierska; Agnieszka Macała; Ryszard Krzyminiewski; Piotr Woźniak; Magdalena Łukowiak; Anna Sękowska-Namiotko; Wojciech Podraza Journal: Pulse (Basel) Date: 2021-10-21
Authors: S Vennarini; N Fournier-Bidoz; C Aristei; C E de Almeida; V Servois; F Campana; V Mosseri; A Fourquet; Y M Kirova Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sadek A Nehmeh; Joseph J Fox; Jazmin Schwartz; Åse M Ballangrud; Heiko Schöder; Yize Zhao; Henry W Strauss; Anthony Yu; Dipti Gupta; Simon N Powell; Alice Y Ho Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 1.605