PURPOSE: We investigated whether treatment-planning system (TPS)-calculated dose accurately reflects skin dose received for patients receiving adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) with standard three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) or skin-sparing helical tomotherapy (HT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial investigating acute skin toxicity from adjuvant breast RT with 3D-CRT compared to skin-sparing HT, where a 5-mm strip of ipsilateral breast skin was spared. Thermoluminescent dosimetry or optically stimulated luminescence measurements were made in multiple locations and were compared to TPS-calculated doses. Skin dosimetric parameters and acute skin toxicity were recorded in these patients. RESULTS: With HT there was a significant correlation between calculated and measured dose in the medial and lateral ipsilateral breast (r = 0.67, P<.001; r = 0.44, P=.03, respectively) and the medial and central contralateral breast (r = 0.73, P<.001; r = 0.88, P<.001, respectively). With 3D-CRT there was a significant correlation in the medial and lateral ipsilateral breast (r = 0.45, P=.03; r = 0.68, P<.001, respectively); the medial and central contralateral breast (r = 0.62, P=.001; r = 0.86, P<.001, respectively); and the mid neck (r = 0.42, P=.04, respectively). On average, HT-calculated dose overestimated the measured dose by 14%; 3D-CRT underestimated the dose by 0.4%. There was a borderline association between highest measured skin dose and moist desquamation (P=.05). Skin-sparing HT had greater skin homogeneity (homogeneity index of 1.39 vs 1.65, respectively; P=.005) than 3D-CRT plans. HT plans had a lower skin(V50) (1.4% vs 5.9%, respectively; P=.001) but higher skin(V40) and skin(V30) (71.7% vs 64.0%, P=.02; and 99.0% vs 93.8%, P=.001, respectively) than 3D-CRT plans. CONCLUSION: The 3D-CRT TPS more accurately reflected skin dose than the HT TPS, which tended to overestimate dose received by 14% in patients receiving adjuvant breast RT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We investigated whether treatment-planning system (TPS)-calculated dose accurately reflects skin dose received for patients receiving adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) with standard three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) or skin-sparing helical tomotherapy (HT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial investigating acute skin toxicity from adjuvant breast RT with 3D-CRT compared to skin-sparing HT, where a 5-mm strip of ipsilateral breast skin was spared. Thermoluminescent dosimetry or optically stimulated luminescence measurements were made in multiple locations and were compared to TPS-calculated doses. Skin dosimetric parameters and acute skin toxicity were recorded in these patients. RESULTS: With HT there was a significant correlation between calculated and measured dose in the medial and lateral ipsilateral breast (r = 0.67, P<.001; r = 0.44, P=.03, respectively) and the medial and central contralateral breast (r = 0.73, P<.001; r = 0.88, P<.001, respectively). With 3D-CRT there was a significant correlation in the medial and lateral ipsilateral breast (r = 0.45, P=.03; r = 0.68, P<.001, respectively); the medial and central contralateral breast (r = 0.62, P=.001; r = 0.86, P<.001, respectively); and the mid neck (r = 0.42, P=.04, respectively). On average, HT-calculated dose overestimated the measured dose by 14%; 3D-CRT underestimated the dose by 0.4%. There was a borderline association between highest measured skin dose and moist desquamation (P=.05). Skin-sparing HT had greater skin homogeneity (homogeneity index of 1.39 vs 1.65, respectively; P=.005) than 3D-CRT plans. HT plans had a lower skin(V50) (1.4% vs 5.9%, respectively; P=.001) but higher skin(V40) and skin(V30) (71.7% vs 64.0%, P=.02; and 99.0% vs 93.8%, P=.001, respectively) than 3D-CRT plans. CONCLUSION: The 3D-CRT TPS more accurately reflected skin dose than the HT TPS, which tended to overestimate dose received by 14% in patients receiving adjuvant breast RT.
Authors: Rudolf Klepper; Sebastian Höfel; Ulrike Botha; Peter Köhler; Felix Zwicker Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102