Barbara Dobler1, Johannes Maier2, Bernadette Knott2, Manuel Maerz2, Rainer Loeschel3, Oliver Koelbl2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Regensburg University Medical Center, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. barbara.dobler@ukr.de. 2. Department of Radiotherapy, Regensburg University Medical Center, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. 3. Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate if the flattening filter free mode (FFF) of a linear accelerator reduces the excess absolute risk (EAR) for second cancer as compared to the flat beam mode (FF) in simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiation therapy of right-sided breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six plans were generated treating the whole breast to 50.4 Gy and a SIB volume to 63 Gy on CT data of 10 patients: intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and a tangential arc VMAT (tVMAT), each with flattening filter and without. The EAR was calculated for the contralateral breast and the lungs from dose-volume histograms (DVH) based on the linear-exponential, the plateau, and the full mechanistic dose-response model. Peripheral low-dose measurements were performed to compare the EAR in more distant regions as the thyroids and the uterus. RESULTS: FFF reduces the EAR significantly in the contralateral and peripheral organs for tVMAT and in the peripheral organs for VMAT. No reduction was found for IMRT. The lowest EAR for the contralateral breast and lung was achieved with tVMAT FFF, reducing the EAR by 25 % and 29 % as compared to tVMAT FF, and by 44 % to 58 % as compared to VMAT and IMRT in both irradiation modes. tVMAT FFF showed also the lowest peripheral dose corresponding to the lowest EAR in the thyroids and the uterus. CONCLUSION: The use of FFF mode allows reducing the EAR significantly when tVMAT is used as the treatment technique. When second cancer risk is a major concern, tVMAT FFF is considered the preferred treatment option in SIB irradiation of right-sided breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate if the flattening filter free mode (FFF) of a linear accelerator reduces the excess absolute risk (EAR) for second cancer as compared to the flat beam mode (FF) in simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiation therapy of right-sided breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six plans were generated treating the whole breast to 50.4 Gy and a SIB volume to 63 Gy on CT data of 10 patients: intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and a tangential arc VMAT (tVMAT), each with flattening filter and without. The EAR was calculated for the contralateral breast and the lungs from dose-volume histograms (DVH) based on the linear-exponential, the plateau, and the full mechanistic dose-response model. Peripheral low-dose measurements were performed to compare the EAR in more distant regions as the thyroids and the uterus. RESULTS: FFF reduces the EAR significantly in the contralateral and peripheral organs for tVMAT and in the peripheral organs for VMAT. No reduction was found for IMRT. The lowest EAR for the contralateral breast and lung was achieved with tVMAT FFF, reducing the EAR by 25 % and 29 % as compared to tVMAT FF, and by 44 % to 58 % as compared to VMAT and IMRT in both irradiation modes. tVMAT FFF showed also the lowest peripheral dose corresponding to the lowest EAR in the thyroids and the uterus. CONCLUSION: The use of FFF mode allows reducing the EAR significantly when tVMAT is used as the treatment technique. When second cancer risk is a major concern, tVMAT FFF is considered the preferred treatment option in SIB irradiation of right-sided breast cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast Cancer; Flattening Filter Free; Peripheral Dose; Radiotherapy; Second Cancer Risk
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: Barbara Dobler; Natalia Streck; Elisabeth Klein; Rainer Loeschel; Petra Haertl; Oliver Koelbl Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Damien C Weber; Safora Johanson; Nicolas Peguret; Luca Cozzi; Dag R Olsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kathrin Dellas; Reinhard Vonthein; Jörg Zimmer; Stefan Dinges; Alexander D Boicev; Peter Andreas; Dorothea Fischer; Cornelia Winkler; Andreas Ziegler; Jürgen Dunst Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Marilyn Stovall; Susan A Smith; Bryan M Langholz; John D Boice; Roy E Shore; Michael Andersson; Thomas A Buchholz; Marinela Capanu; Leslie Bernstein; Charles F Lynch; Kathleen E Malone; Hoda Anton-Culver; Robert W Haile; Barry S Rosenstein; Anne S Reiner; Duncan C Thomas; Jonine L Bernstein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-06-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stefanie Corradini; Hendrik Ballhausen; Helmut Weingandt; Philipp Freislederer; Stephan Schönecker; Maximilian Niyazi; Cristoforo Simonetto; Markus Eidemüller; Ute Ganswindt; Claus Belka Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Barbara Dobler; Tina Obermeier; Matthias G Hautmann; Amine Khemissi; Oliver Koelbl Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.481