Adrian Murray Brunt1, Susan Lupton2, Karen Thorley2, Lynda Pearce2, Julia Handley2. 1. Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, United Kingdom; Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom. 2. Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
Abstract
AIM: A comparison of techniques, CT planning of the supraclavicular fossa and field based simulation. We highlight CT planned SCF radiotherapy which would be useful for a centre introducing the technique. BACKGROUND: Development of radiotherapy technique includes a move from field-based simulation to CT planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the first 50 patients receiving radiotherapy according to the 3D CT planning protocol. Production of the previous field based technique, by virtual simulation methods on the same 50 patient CT data sets allowed both techniques to be compared for beam energy, field size, planning target volume (PTV) minimum and maximum, mean doses, depth dose normalisation, V40% lung volume and brachial plexus. RESULTS: 88% CT-volumed plans received mean dose within ICRU recommended limits compared with only 8% using previous conventional technique. 76% required 10 MV to improve coverage and one patient (2%) an opposed posterior field. The mean normalisation depth was 4.5 cm (range 1.9-7.7 cm) compared with pre-set 3 cm of the conventional technique. With CT-volumed technique the whole lung volume exposed to V40%, including the tangential fields, reduced from 10.79% to 9.64% (p < 0.001) but the mean maximum brachial plexus dose increased from 48.9 Gy to 51.6 Gy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dose coverage of the SCF PTV was greatly improved for plans produced from 3DCT volumes compared to field based techniques.
AIM: A comparison of techniques, CT planning of the supraclavicular fossa and field based simulation. We highlight CT planned SCF radiotherapy which would be useful for a centre introducing the technique. BACKGROUND: Development of radiotherapy technique includes a move from field-based simulation to CT planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the first 50 patients receiving radiotherapy according to the 3D CT planning protocol. Production of the previous field based technique, by virtual simulation methods on the same 50 patient CT data sets allowed both techniques to be compared for beam energy, field size, planning target volume (PTV) minimum and maximum, mean doses, depth dose normalisation, V40% lung volume and brachial plexus. RESULTS: 88% CT-volumed plans received mean dose within ICRU recommended limits compared with only 8% using previous conventional technique. 76% required 10 MV to improve coverage and one patient (2%) an opposed posterior field. The mean normalisation depth was 4.5 cm (range 1.9-7.7 cm) compared with pre-set 3 cm of the conventional technique. With CT-volumed technique the whole lung volume exposed to V40%, including the tangential fields, reduced from 10.79% to 9.64% (p < 0.001) but the mean maximum brachial plexus dose increased from 48.9 Gy to 51.6 Gy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dose coverage of the SCF PTV was greatly improved for plans produced from 3DCT volumes compared to field based techniques.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; CT planning; Supraclavicular fossa radiotherapy
Authors: Timothy J Whelan; Ivo A Olivotto; Wendy R Parulekar; Ida Ackerman; Boon H Chua; Abdenour Nabid; Katherine A Vallis; Julia R White; Pierre Rousseau; Andre Fortin; Lori J Pierce; Lee Manchul; Susan Chafe; Maureen C Nolan; Peter Craighead; Julie Bowen; David R McCready; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Gelmon; Yvonne Murray; Judy-Anne W Chapman; Bingshu E Chen; Mark N Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip M Poortmans; Sandra Collette; Carine Kirkove; Erik Van Limbergen; Volker Budach; Henk Struikmans; Laurence Collette; Alain Fourquet; Philippe Maingon; Mariacarla Valli; Karin De Winter; Simone Marnitz; Isabelle Barillot; Luciano Scandolaro; Ernest Vonk; Carla Rodenhuis; Hugo Marsiglia; Nicola Weidner; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Christoph Glanzmann; Abraham Kuten; Rodrigo Arriagada; Harry Bartelink; Walter Van den Bogaert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joanne S Haviland; J Roger Owen; John A Dewar; Rajiv K Agrawal; Jane Barrett; Peter J Barrett-Lee; H Jane Dobbs; Penelope Hopwood; Pat A Lawton; Brian J Magee; Judith Mills; Sandra Simmons; Mark A Sydenham; Karen Venables; Judith M Bliss; John R Yarnold Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316