AIM: To investigate the viability of placing the treatment isocenter at the patient midline for breast cancer radiotherapy in order to avoid the risk of collisions during image-guided setup and treatment delivery. BACKGROUND: The use of kilovoltage orthogonal setup images has spread in last years in breast radiotherapy. There is a potential risk of an imaging system-patient collision when the isocenter is laterally placed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty IMRT plans designed by placing the isocenter within the breast volume ("plan_ref"), were retrospectively replanned by shifting the isocenter at the patient's midline ("plan_off-breast"). An integrated simultaneous boost (SIB) technique was used. Multiple metrics for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for both approaches using a paired t test. RESULTS: Comparing plan_ref vs. plan_off-breast, no significant differences in PTV coverage (V95%) were found (96.5% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.361 to PTVbreast; 97.0% vs. 97.0%; p = 0.977 to PTVtumor_bed). With regard to OARs, no substantial differences were observed in any analyzed metric: V5Gy (30.3% vs. 31.4%; p = 0.486), V20Gy (10.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.903) and mean dose (7.1 Gy vs. 7.1 Gy; p = 0.924) to the ipsilateral lung; V5Gy (11.2% vs. 10.0%; p = 0.459), V30Gy (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.251) and mean dose (2.3 Gy vs. 2.2 Gy; p = 0.400) to the heart; and average dose to the contralateral breast (0.4 Gy vs. 0.5 Gy; p = 0.107). CONCLUSIONS: The off-breast isocenter solution resulted in dosimetrically comparable plans as the reference technique, avoiding the collision risk during the treatment session.
AIM: To investigate the viability of placing the treatment isocenter at the patient midline for breast cancer radiotherapy in order to avoid the risk of collisions during image-guided setup and treatment delivery. BACKGROUND: The use of kilovoltage orthogonal setup images has spread in last years in breast radiotherapy. There is a potential risk of an imaging system-patient collision when the isocenter is laterally placed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty IMRT plans designed by placing the isocenter within the breast volume ("plan_ref"), were retrospectively replanned by shifting the isocenter at the patient's midline ("plan_off-breast"). An integrated simultaneous boost (SIB) technique was used. Multiple metrics for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for both approaches using a paired t test. RESULTS: Comparing plan_ref vs. plan_off-breast, no significant differences in PTV coverage (V95%) were found (96.5% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.361 to PTVbreast; 97.0% vs. 97.0%; p = 0.977 to PTVtumor_bed). With regard to OARs, no substantial differences were observed in any analyzed metric: V5Gy (30.3% vs. 31.4%; p = 0.486), V20Gy (10.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.903) and mean dose (7.1 Gy vs. 7.1 Gy; p = 0.924) to the ipsilateral lung; V5Gy (11.2% vs. 10.0%; p = 0.459), V30Gy (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.251) and mean dose (2.3 Gy vs. 2.2 Gy; p = 0.400) to the heart; and average dose to the contralateral breast (0.4 Gy vs. 0.5 Gy; p = 0.107). CONCLUSIONS: The off-breast isocenter solution resulted in dosimetrically comparable plans as the reference technique, avoiding the collision risk during the treatment session.
Authors: Marko Laaksomaa; Mika Kapanen; Tanja Skyttä; Seppo Peltola; Simo Hyödynmaa; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2014-07-15
Authors: Mark W McDonald; Karen D Godette; Daisy J Whitaker; Lawrence W Davis; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Toyosi Fatunase; Zhiheng Wang; Sua Yoo; Jessica L Hubbs; Robert G Prosnitz; Fang-Fang Yin; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joshua D Lawson; Tim Fox; Eric Elder; Adam Nowlan; Lawrence Davis; James Keller; Ian Crocker Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Vasileios Askoxylakis; Alexandra D Jensen; Matthias F Häfner; Leonie Fetzner; Florian Sterzing; Joerg Heil; Christof Sohn; Johannes Hüsing; Uta Tiefenbacher; Frederik Wenz; Jürgen Debus; Holger Hof Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 4.430