Beata Sas-Korczyńska1, Anna Sladowska2, Bożena Rozwadowska-Bogusz2, Sonia Dyczek3, Jan Lesiak2, Anna Kokoszka1, Stanisław Korzeniowski1. 1. Breast and Thoracic Cancer Unit, Centre of Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Cracow Branch, Garncarska 11, 31-115 Kraków, Poland. 2. Medical Physics, Centre of Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Cracow Branch, Garncarska 11, 31-115 Kraków, Poland. 3. Diagnostic Radiology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Cracow Branch, Garncarska 11, 31-115 Kraków, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most often found complications in patients with breast cancer who received radiotherapy are cardiac and pulmonary function disorders and development of second malignancies. AIM: To compare the intensity modulated radiotherapy with the 3D tangential beams technique in respect of dose distribution in target volume and critical organs they generate in patients with early-stage breast cancer who received breast-conserving therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dosimetric analysis was performed to assess the three radiotherapy techniques used in each of 10 consecutive patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Radiotherapy was planned with the use of all the three techniques: 3D tangential beams with electron boost, IMRT with electron boost, and intensity modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost. RESULTS: The use of the IMRT techniques enables more homogenous dose distribution in target volume. The range of mean and median dose to the heart and lung was lower with the IMRT techniques in comparison to the 3D tangential beams technique. The range of mean dose to the heart amounted to 0.3-3.5 Gy for the IMRT techniques and 0.4-4.3 for the tangential beams technique. The median dose to the lung on the irradiated side amounted to 4.9-5 Gy for the IMRT techniques and 5.6 Gy for the 3D tangential beams technique. CONCLUSION: The application of the IMRT techniques in radiotherapy patients with early-stage breast cancer allows to obtain more homogenous dose distribution in target volume, while permitting to reduce the dose to critical organs.
BACKGROUND: The most often found complications in patients with breast cancer who received radiotherapy are cardiac and pulmonary function disorders and development of second malignancies. AIM: To compare the intensity modulated radiotherapy with the 3D tangential beams technique in respect of dose distribution in target volume and critical organs they generate in patients with early-stage breast cancer who received breast-conserving therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dosimetric analysis was performed to assess the three radiotherapy techniques used in each of 10 consecutive patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Radiotherapy was planned with the use of all the three techniques: 3D tangential beams with electron boost, IMRT with electron boost, and intensity modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost. RESULTS: The use of the IMRT techniques enables more homogenous dose distribution in target volume. The range of mean and median dose to the heart and lung was lower with the IMRT techniques in comparison to the 3D tangential beams technique. The range of mean dose to the heart amounted to 0.3-3.5 Gy for the IMRT techniques and 0.4-4.3 for the tangential beams technique. The median dose to the lung on the irradiated side amounted to 4.9-5 Gy for the IMRT techniques and 5.6 Gy for the 3D tangential beams technique. CONCLUSION: The application of the IMRT techniques in radiotherapy patients with early-stage breast cancer allows to obtain more homogenous dose distribution in target volume, while permitting to reduce the dose to critical organs.
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: Sharon H Giordano; Yong-Fang Kuo; Jean L Freeman; Thomas A Buchholz; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; James S Goodwin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Sharon Galper; Rebecca Gelman; Abram Recht; Barbara Silver; Anita Kohli; Julia S Wong; Teresa Van Buren; Elizabeth H Baldini; Jay R Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Elantholi P Saibishkumar; Marc A MacKenzie; Diane Severin; Alina Mihai; John Hanson; Helene Daly; Gino Fallone; Matthew B Parliament; Bassam S Abdulkarim Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Krzysztof Slosarek; Aleksandra Grządziel; Wojciech Osewski; Lukasz Dolla; Barbara Bekman; Borislava Petrovic Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2012-02-10
Authors: Manuel Algara; Meritxell Arenas; Dolores De Las Peñas Eloisa Bayo; Julia Muñoz; José Antonio Carceller; Juan Salinas; Ferran Moreno; Francisco Martínez; Ezequiel González; Angel Montero Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2012-04-17