PURPOSE: To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative whole breast radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans were generated: a standard tangential plan with either one outer field wedge or bilateral wedges, and an FIF plan. Three indices were used: the dose homogeneity index (DHI), PTV dose improvement index (PDI(index)) and geometric conformity index (g). Also ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast doses were compared for each plan. RESULTS: Dose homogeneity index was significantly lower for the FIF (0.117 ± 0.021) than for the single wedge (0.131 ± 0.025, p = 0.02) and double wedged plan (0.128 ± 0.025, p = 0.04), respectively. The g was significantly less in the FIF (0.70 ± 0.14) compared to the wedge plans (0.80 ± 0.17, p = 0.02 and 0.83 ± 0.16, p = 0.003). Contralateral breast doses were significantly lower in the FIF plan. The FIF plan significantly lowered MU compared to both the single wedge and bilateral wedge plans. CONCLUSION: The dose distribution within the target was more homogenous, and the doses for healthy tissue were less in the FIF plan compared to the tangential wedge plans.
PURPOSE: To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative whole breast radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans were generated: a standard tangential plan with either one outer field wedge or bilateral wedges, and an FIF plan. Three indices were used: the dose homogeneity index (DHI), PTV dose improvement index (PDI(index)) and geometric conformity index (g). Also ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast doses were compared for each plan. RESULTS: Dose homogeneity index was significantly lower for the FIF (0.117 ± 0.021) than for the single wedge (0.131 ± 0.025, p = 0.02) and double wedged plan (0.128 ± 0.025, p = 0.04), respectively. The g was significantly less in the FIF (0.70 ± 0.14) compared to the wedge plans (0.80 ± 0.17, p = 0.02 and 0.83 ± 0.16, p = 0.003). Contralateral breast doses were significantly lower in the FIF plan. The FIF plan significantly lowered MU compared to both the single wedge and bilateral wedge plans. CONCLUSION: The dose distribution within the target was more homogenous, and the doses for healthy tissue were less in the FIF plan compared to the tangential wedge plans.
Authors: L Hong; M Hunt; C Chui; S Spirou; K Forster; H Lee; J Yahalom; G J Kutcher; B McCormick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew Fong; Regina Bromley; Mardi Beat; Din Vien; Jude Dineley; Graeme Morgan Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Ajay K Bhatnagar; Edward Brandner; Deborah Sonnik; Andrew Wu; Shalom Kalnicki; Melvin Deutsch; Dwight E Heron Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-10-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: A Aref; D Thornton; E Youssef; T He; S Tekyi-Mensah; L Denton; G Ezzell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gillian C Barnett; Jennifer Wilkinson; Anne M Moody; Charles B Wilson; Ravi Sharma; Sabine Klager; Andrew C F Hoole; Nicola Twyman; Neil G Burnet; Charlotte E Coles Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Anna Cavallo; Maria Chiara Magri; Riccardo Ray Colciago; Angelo Vitullo; Eliana La Rocca; Carlotta Giandini; Francesca Bonfantini; Serena Di Cosimo; Paolo Baili; Milena Sant; Emanuele Pignoli; Riccardo Valdagni; Laura Lozza; Maria Carmen De Santis Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 3.064