OBJECTIVE: We compared and evaluated the differences between two models for treating bilateral breast cancer (BBC): (i) dose-volume-based intensity-modulated radiation treatment (DV plan), and (ii) dose-volume-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy with generalised equivalent uniform dose-based optimisation (DV-gEUD plan). METHODS: The quality and performance of the DV plan and DV-gEUD plan using the Pinnacle(3) system (Philips, Fitchburg, WI) were evaluated and compared in 10 patients with stage T2-T4 BBC. The plans were delivered on a Varian 21EX linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA) equipped with a Millennium 120 leaf multileaf collimator (Varian Medical Systems). The parameters analysed included the conformity index, homogeneity index, tumour control probability of the planning target volume (PTV), the volumes V(20 Gy) and V(30 Gy) of the organs at risk (OAR, including the heart and lungs), mean dose and the normal tissue complication probability. RESULTS: Both plans met the requirements for the coverage of PTV with similar conformity and homogeneity indices. However, the DV-gEUD plan had the advantage of dose sparing for OAR: the mean doses of the heart and lungs, lung V(20) (Gy), and heart V(30) (Gy) in the DV-gEUD plan were lower than those in the DV plan (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A better result can be obtained by starting with a DV-generated plan and then improving it by adding gEUD-based improvements to reduce the number of iterations and to improve the optimum dose distribution. Advances to knowledge The DV-gEUD plan provided superior dosimetric results for treating BBC in terms of PTV coverage and OAR sparing than the DV plan, without sacrificing the homogeneity of dose distribution in the PTV.
OBJECTIVE: We compared and evaluated the differences between two models for treating bilateral breast cancer (BBC): (i) dose-volume-based intensity-modulated radiation treatment (DV plan), and (ii) dose-volume-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy with generalised equivalent uniform dose-based optimisation (DV-gEUD plan). METHODS: The quality and performance of the DV plan and DV-gEUD plan using the Pinnacle(3) system (Philips, Fitchburg, WI) were evaluated and compared in 10 patients with stage T2-T4 BBC. The plans were delivered on a Varian 21EX linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA) equipped with a Millennium 120 leaf multileaf collimator (Varian Medical Systems). The parameters analysed included the conformity index, homogeneity index, tumour control probability of the planning target volume (PTV), the volumes V(20 Gy) and V(30 Gy) of the organs at risk (OAR, including the heart and lungs), mean dose and the normal tissue complication probability. RESULTS: Both plans met the requirements for the coverage of PTV with similar conformity and homogeneity indices. However, the DV-gEUD plan had the advantage of dose sparing for OAR: the mean doses of the heart and lungs, lung V(20) (Gy), and heart V(30) (Gy) in the DV-gEUD plan were lower than those in the DV plan (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A better result can be obtained by starting with a DV-generated plan and then improving it by adding gEUD-based improvements to reduce the number of iterations and to improve the optimum dose distribution. Advances to knowledge The DV-gEUD plan provided superior dosimetric results for treating BBC in terms of PTV coverage and OAR sparing than the DV plan, without sacrificing the homogeneity of dose distribution in the PTV.
Authors: A Fogliata; G Nicolini; M Alber; M Asell; B Dobler; M El-Haddad; B Hårdemark; U Jelen; A Kania; M Larsson; F Lohr; T Munger; E Negri; C Rodrigues; L Cozzi Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Louise Braban; Steven A Leibel; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-04 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: Frank Vicini; Kathryn Winter; William Straube; John Wong; Helen Pass; Rachel Rabinovitch; Susan Chafe; Douglas Arthur; Ivy Petersen; Beryl McCormick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S V Gollamudi; R S Gelman; G Peiro; L J Schneider; S J Schnitt; A Recht; B J Silver; J R Harris; J L Connolly Journal: Cancer Date: 1997-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702