OBJECTIVE: We investigated dosimetric advantages of using helical tomotherapy to simultaneously irradiate the breast and regional lymph nodes for patients positioned prone, and compared tomotherapy plan qualities for the prone position with those previously published for the supine position. METHODS: Tomotherapy plans for 11 patients (5 left breast, 6 right) simulated with the involved breast suspended downward were generated. Each target (ipsilateral breast and supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary chain nodes) was to receive 45 Gy. RESULTS: For targets, V(40.5)≥99.9% and V(42.8)≥99.5% for all patients, where V(40.5) and V(42.8) denote the relative target volume receiving at least 40.5 and 42.8 Gy, respectively. The targets' maximum dose was, on average, approximately 49.5 Gy. The mean doses to the contralateral lung and heart were lower for right-breast cases (2.8 Gy lung, 2.7 Gy heart) than for left-breast cases (3.8 Gy lung, 8.7 Gy heart). Mean organ doses to the ipsilateral lung (9.3 Gy) and contralateral breast (2.3 Gy) from the prone breast tomotherapy plans were similar to those reported for conventional radiotherapy techniques. For the left breast with regional nodes, tomotherapy plans for prone-positioned patients yielded lower mean doses to the contralateral breast and heart than previously reported data for tomotherapy plans for supine-positioned patients. CONCLUSION: Helical tomotherapy with prone breast positioning can simultaneously cover the breast and regional nodes with acceptable uniformity and can provide reduced mean dose to proximal organs at risk compared with tomotherapy with supine position. The similarity of plan quality to existing data for conventional breast radiotherapy indicates that this planning approach is appropriate, and that the risk of secondary tumour formation should not be significantly greater.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated dosimetric advantages of using helical tomotherapy to simultaneously irradiate the breast and regional lymph nodes for patients positioned prone, and compared tomotherapy plan qualities for the prone position with those previously published for the supine position. METHODS: Tomotherapy plans for 11 patients (5 left breast, 6 right) simulated with the involved breast suspended downward were generated. Each target (ipsilateral breast and supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary chain nodes) was to receive 45 Gy. RESULTS: For targets, V(40.5)≥99.9% and V(42.8)≥99.5% for all patients, where V(40.5) and V(42.8) denote the relative target volume receiving at least 40.5 and 42.8 Gy, respectively. The targets' maximum dose was, on average, approximately 49.5 Gy. The mean doses to the contralateral lung and heart were lower for right-breast cases (2.8 Gy lung, 2.7 Gy heart) than for left-breast cases (3.8 Gy lung, 8.7 Gy heart). Mean organ doses to the ipsilateral lung (9.3 Gy) and contralateral breast (2.3 Gy) from the prone breast tomotherapy plans were similar to those reported for conventional radiotherapy techniques. For the left breast with regional nodes, tomotherapy plans for prone-positioned patients yielded lower mean doses to the contralateral breast and heart than previously reported data for tomotherapy plans for supine-positioned patients. CONCLUSION: Helical tomotherapy with prone breast positioning can simultaneously cover the breast and regional nodes with acceptable uniformity and can provide reduced mean dose to proximal organs at risk compared with tomotherapy with supine position. The similarity of plan quality to existing data for conventional breast radiotherapy indicates that this planning approach is appropriate, and that the risk of secondary tumour formation should not be significantly greater.
Authors: M W Kissick; J Fenwick; J A James; R Jeraj; J M Kapatoes; H Keller; T R Mackie; G Olivera; E T Soisson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Victor J Gonzalez; Daniel J Buchholz; Katja M Langen; Gustavo H Olivera; Bhavin Chauhan; Sanford L Meeks; Kenneth J Ruchala; Jason Haimerl; Weiguo Lu; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-05-01 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: Lisa J Forrest; Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Ken Ruchala; Michelle Turek; Jeff Kapatoes; Hazim Jaradat; Susanta Hui; John Balog; David M Vail; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shulian Wang; Zhongxing Liao; Xiong Wei; Helen H Liu; Susan L Tucker; Chao-Su Hu; Rodhe Mohan; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shu-lian Wang; Zhongxing Liao; Ara A Vaporciyan; Susan L Tucker; Helen Liu; Xiong Wei; Stephen Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Susanta K Hui; Rupak K Das; Jeff Kapatoes; Gustavo Oliviera; Stuart Becker; Heath Odau; John D Fenwick; Rakesh Patel; Robert Kuske; Minesh Mehta; Bhudatt Paliwal; Thomas R Mackie; Jack F Fowler; James S Welsh Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-12
Authors: Stephen L Mahan; Chester R Ramsey; Daniel D Scaperoth; Daniel J Chase; Thomas E Byrne Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-08-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M V Graham; J A Purdy; B Emami; W Harms; W Bosch; M A Lockett; C A Perez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Bruno A Speleers; Francesca M Belosi; Werner R De Gersem; Pieter R Deseyne; Leen M Paelinck; Alessandra Bolsi; Antony J Lomax; Bert G Boute; Annick E Van Greveling; Christel M Monten; Joris J Van de Velde; Tom H Vercauteren; Liv Veldeman; Damien C Weber; Wilfried C De Neve Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Bruno Speleers; Max Schoepen; Francesca Belosi; Vincent Vakaet; Wilfried De Neve; Pieter Deseyne; Leen Paelinck; Tom Vercauteren; Michael J Parkes; Tony Lomax; Annick Van Greveling; Alessandra Bolsi; Damien C Weber; Liv Veldeman; Werner De Gersem Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Pieter Deseyne; Bruno Speleers; Leen Paelinck; Werner De Gersem; Wilfried De Neve; Max Schoepen; Annick Van Greveling; Hans Van Hulle; Vincent Vakaet; Giselle Post; Chris Monten; Herman Depypere; Liv Veldeman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.379