PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) to (1) determine intrafractional motion of the breast surgical cavity; and (2) assess delivered dose versus planned dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty women with breast cancer (stages 0-I) who underwent breast-conserving surgery were enrolled in a prospective registry evaluating APBI using a 0.35-T MR-IGRT system. Clinical target volume was defined as the surgical cavity plus a 1-cm margin (excluding chest wall, pectoral muscles, and 5 mm from skin). No additional margin was added for the planning target volume (PTV). A volumetric MR image was acquired before each fraction, and patients were set up to the surgical cavity as visualized on MR imaging. To determine the delivered dose for each fraction, the electron density map and contours from the computed tomography simulation were transferred to the pretreatment MR image via rigid registration. Intrafractional motion of the surgical cavity was determined by applying a tracking algorithm to the cavity contour as visualized on cine MR. RESULTS: Median PTV volume was reduced by 52% when using no PTV margin compared with a 1-cm PTV margin used conventionally. The mean (± standard deviation) difference between planned and delivered dose to the PTV (V95) was 0.6% ± 0.1%. The mean cavity displacement in the anterior-posterior and superior-inferior directions was 0.6 ± 0.4 mm and 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, respectively. The mean margin required for at least 90% of the cavity to be contained by the margin for 90% of the time was 0.7 mm (5th-95th percentile: 0-2.7 mm). CONCLUSION: Minimal intrafractional motion was observed, and the mean difference between planned and delivered dose was less than 1%. Assessment of efficacy and cosmesis of this MR-guided APBI approach is under way.
PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) to (1) determine intrafractional motion of the breast surgical cavity; and (2) assess delivered dose versus planned dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty women with breast cancer (stages 0-I) who underwent breast-conserving surgery were enrolled in a prospective registry evaluating APBI using a 0.35-T MR-IGRT system. Clinical target volume was defined as the surgical cavity plus a 1-cm margin (excluding chest wall, pectoral muscles, and 5 mm from skin). No additional margin was added for the planning target volume (PTV). A volumetric MR image was acquired before each fraction, and patients were set up to the surgical cavity as visualized on MR imaging. To determine the delivered dose for each fraction, the electron density map and contours from the computed tomography simulation were transferred to the pretreatment MR image via rigid registration. Intrafractional motion of the surgical cavity was determined by applying a tracking algorithm to the cavity contour as visualized on cine MR. RESULTS: Median PTV volume was reduced by 52% when using no PTV margin compared with a 1-cm PTV margin used conventionally. The mean (± standard deviation) difference between planned and delivered dose to the PTV (V95) was 0.6% ± 0.1%. The mean cavity displacement in the anterior-posterior and superior-inferior directions was 0.6 ± 0.4 mm and 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, respectively. The mean margin required for at least 90% of the cavity to be contained by the margin for 90% of the time was 0.7 mm (5th-95th percentile: 0-2.7 mm). CONCLUSION: Minimal intrafractional motion was observed, and the mean difference between planned and delivered dose was less than 1%. Assessment of efficacy and cosmesis of this MR-guided APBI approach is under way.
Authors: L E Henke; J A Contreras; O L Green; B Cai; H Kim; M C Roach; J R Olsen; B Fischer-Valuck; D F Mullen; R Kashani; M A Thomas; J Huang; I Zoberi; D Yang; V Rodriguez; J D Bradley; C G Robinson; P Parikh; S Mutic; J Michalski Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: William A Hall; Eric S Paulson; Uulke A van der Heide; Clifton D Fuller; B W Raaymakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; X Allen Li; David A Jaffray; Laura A Dawson; Beth Erickson; Marcel Verheij; Kevin J Harrington; Arjun Sahgal; Percy Lee; Parag J Parikh; Michael F Bassetti; Clifford G Robinson; Bruce D Minsky; Ananya Choudhury; Robert J H A Tersteeg; Christopher J Schultz Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Tobias Forster; Clara Victoria Katharina Köhler; Jürgen Debus; Juliane Hörner-Rieber Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Lauren Henke; Olga Green; Rojano Kashani; Sahaja Acharya; Jeffrey D Bradley; Clifford G Robinson; Maria Thomas; Imran Zoberi; Wade Thorstad; Hiram Gay; Jiayi Huang; Michael Roach; Vivian Rodriguez; Lakshmi Santanam; Harold Li; Hua Li; Jessika Contreras; Thomas Mazur; Dennis Hallahan; Jeffrey R Olsen; Parag Parikh; Sasa Mutic; Jeff Michalski Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Maureen L Groot Koerkamp; Jeanine E Vasmel; Nicola S Russell; Simona F Shaitelman; Carmel N Anandadas; Adam Currey; Danny Vesprini; Brian M Keller; Chiara De-Colle; Kathy Han; Lior Z Braunstein; Faisal Mahmood; Ebbe L Lorenzen; Marielle E P Philippens; Helena M Verkooijen; Jan J W Lagendijk; Antonetta C Houweling; H J G Desiree van den Bongard; Anna M Kirby Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: D Reitz; G Carl; S Schönecker; M Pazos; P Freislederer; M Niyazi; U Ganswindt; F Alongi; M Reiner; C Belka; S Corradini Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 3.481