Steve Walston1, Allison M Quick1, Karla Kuhn1, Yi Rong2. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present our clinical workflow of incorporating AlignRT for left breast deep inspiration breath-hold treatments and the dosimetric considerations with the deep inspiration breath-hold protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with stage I to III left-sided breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy were considered candidates for deep inspiration breath-hold technique for their external beam radiation therapy. Treatment plans were created on both free-breathing and deep inspiration breath-hold computed tomography for each patient to determine whether deep inspiration breath-hold was beneficial based on dosimetric comparison. The AlignRT system was used for patient setup and monitoring. Dosimetric measurements and their correlation with chest wall excursion and increase in left lung volume were studied for free-breathing and deep inspiration breath-hold plans. RESULTS: Deep inspiration breath-hold plans had significantly increased chest wall excursion when compared with free breathing. This change in geometry resulted in reduced mean and maximum heart dose but did not impact lung V20 or mean dose. The correlation between chest wall excursion and absolute reduction in heart or lung dose was found to be nonsignificant, but correlation between left lung volume and heart dose showed a linear association. It was also identified that higher levels of chest wall excursion may paradoxically increase heart or lung dose. CONCLUSION: Reduction in heart dose can be achieved for many left-sided breast and chest wall patients using deep inspiration breath-hold. Chest wall excursion as well as left lung volume did not correlate with reduction in heart dose, and it remains to be determined what metric will provide the most optimal and reliable dosimetric advantage.
PURPOSE: To present our clinical workflow of incorporating AlignRT for left breast deep inspiration breath-hold treatments and the dosimetric considerations with the deep inspiration breath-hold protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Patients with stage I to III left-sided breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy were considered candidates for deep inspiration breath-hold technique for their external beam radiation therapy. Treatment plans were created on both free-breathing and deep inspiration breath-hold computed tomography for each patient to determine whether deep inspiration breath-hold was beneficial based on dosimetric comparison. The AlignRT system was used for patient setup and monitoring. Dosimetric measurements and their correlation with chest wall excursion and increase in left lung volume were studied for free-breathing and deep inspiration breath-hold plans. RESULTS: Deep inspiration breath-hold plans had significantly increased chest wall excursion when compared with free breathing. This change in geometry resulted in reduced mean and maximum heart dose but did not impact lung V20 or mean dose. The correlation between chest wall excursion and absolute reduction in heart or lung dose was found to be nonsignificant, but correlation between left lung volume and heart dose showed a linear association. It was also identified that higher levels of chest wall excursion may paradoxically increase heart or lung dose. CONCLUSION: Reduction in heart dose can be achieved for many left-sided breast and chest wall patients using deep inspiration breath-hold. Chest wall excursion as well as left lung volume did not correlate with reduction in heart dose, and it remains to be determined what metric will provide the most optimal and reliable dosimetric advantage.
Entities:
Keywords:
Real-Time Position Management; breast cancer therapy; chest wall excursion; deep inspiration breath-hold; surface imaging
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: Eugene Chung; James R Corbett; Jean M Moran; Kent A Griffith; Robin B Marsh; Mary Feng; Reshma Jagsi; Marc L Kessler; Edward C Ficaro; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michaela Prochazka; Per Hall; Giovanna Gagliardi; Fredrik Granath; Bo N Nilsson; Peter G Shields; Meredith Tennis; Kamila Czene Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Philipp J Schöffel; Wolfgang Harms; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Wolfgang Schlegel; Christian P Karger Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Paul McGale; Sarah C Darby; Per Hall; Jan Adolfsson; Nils-Olof Bengtsson; Anna M Bennet; Tommy Fornander; Bruna Gigante; Maj-Britt Jensen; Richard Peto; Kazem Rahimi; Carolyn W Taylor; Marianne Ewertz Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: V Salvestrini; G C Iorio; P Borghetti; F De Felice; C Greco; V Nardone; A Fiorentino; F Gregucci; I Desideri Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Patricia Browne; Nakia-Rae Beaton; Harish Sharma; Sharon Watson; G Tao Mai; Jennifer Harvey; Anne Bernard; Elizabeth Brown; Catriona Hargrave; Margot Lehman Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2020-07-05