OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in breast cancer and to compare it with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) as conventional tangential field radiotheraphy (conTFRT). METHODS: 12 patients (Stage I, 8: 6 left breast cancer and 2 right breast cancer; Stage II, 4: 2 on each side). Three plans were calculated for each case after breast-conserving surgery. Breast was treated with 50 Gy in four patients with supraclavicular lymph node inclusion, and in eight patients without the node inclusion. Multiple indices and dose parameters were measured. RESULTS: V95% was not achieved by any modality. Heterogeneity index: 0.16 (VMAT), 0.13 [intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)] and 0.14 (conTFRT). Conformity index: 1.06 (VMAT), 1.15 (IMRT) and 1.69 (conTFRT). For both indices, IMRT was more effective than VMAT (p=0.009, p=0.002). Dmean and V20 for ipsilateral lung were lower for IMRT than VMAT (p=0.0001, p=0.003). Dmean, V2 and V5 of contralateral lung were lower for IMRT than VMAT (p>0.0001, p=0.005). Mean dose and V5 to the heart were lower for IMRT than for VMAT (p=0.015, p=0.002). CONCLUSION: The hypothesis of equivalence of VMAT to IMRT was not confirmed for planning target volume parameter or dose distribution to organs at risk. VMAT was inferior to IMRT and 3D-CRT with regard to dose distribution to organs at risk, especially at the low dose level. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: New technology VMAT is not superior to IMRT or conventional radiotherapy in breast cancer in any aspect.
OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in breast cancer and to compare it with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) as conventional tangential field radiotheraphy (conTFRT). METHODS: 12 patients (Stage I, 8: 6 left breast cancer and 2 right breast cancer; Stage II, 4: 2 on each side). Three plans were calculated for each case after breast-conserving surgery. Breast was treated with 50 Gy in four patients with supraclavicular lymph node inclusion, and in eight patients without the node inclusion. Multiple indices and dose parameters were measured. RESULTS: V95% was not achieved by any modality. Heterogeneity index: 0.16 (VMAT), 0.13 [intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)] and 0.14 (conTFRT). Conformity index: 1.06 (VMAT), 1.15 (IMRT) and 1.69 (conTFRT). For both indices, IMRT was more effective than VMAT (p=0.009, p=0.002). Dmean and V20 for ipsilateral lung were lower for IMRT than VMAT (p=0.0001, p=0.003). Dmean, V2 and V5 of contralateral lung were lower for IMRT than VMAT (p>0.0001, p=0.005). Mean dose and V5 to the heart were lower for IMRT than for VMAT (p=0.015, p=0.002). CONCLUSION: The hypothesis of equivalence of VMAT to IMRT was not confirmed for planning target volume parameter or dose distribution to organs at risk. VMAT was inferior to IMRT and 3D-CRT with regard to dose distribution to organs at risk, especially at the low dose level. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: New technology VMAT is not superior to IMRT or conventional radiotherapy in breast cancer in any aspect.
Authors: Frank A Vicini; Michael Sharpe; Larry Kestin; Alvaro Martinez; Christina K Mitchell; Michelle F Wallace; Richard Matter; John Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eleanor E R Harris; Candace Correa; Wei-Ting Hwang; Jessica Liao; Harold I Litt; Victor A Ferrari; Lawrence J Solin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carole Rubino; Akthar Shamsaldin; Monique G Lê; Martine Labbé; Jean-Marc Guinebretière; Jean Chavaudra; Florent de Vathaire Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: J Cuzick; H Stewart; L Rutqvist; J Houghton; R Edwards; C Redmond; R Peto; M Baum; B Fisher; H Host Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mi Joo Chung; Guk Jin Lee; Young Jin Suh; Hyo Chun Lee; Sea-Won Lee; Songmi Jeong; Jeong Won Lee; Sung Hwan Kim; Dae Gyu Kang; Jong Hoon Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 4.679