OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to find the most appropriate technique for postmastectomy chest wall (CW) and lymphatic irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Partially wide tangent, 30/70 photon/electron mix, 20/80 photon/electron mix and CW and internal mammary en face electron field, were studied on computerized tomography (CT) scans of 10 left breast carcinoma patients and dosimetric calculations have been studied. Dose volume histograms (DVH) obtained from treatment planning system (TPS) were used for minimal, maximal and mean doses received by the clinical target volumes and critical structures. RESULTS: Partially wide tangent field resulted in the most homogeneous dose distribution for the CW and a significantly lower lung and heart doses compared with all other techniques. However, right breast dose was significantly higher for partially wide tangent technique than that each of the other techniques. Approximately 0.6-7.9% differences were found between thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and treatment planning system (TPS). The daily surface doses calculating using Gafchromic® external beam therapy (EBT) dosimetry films were 161.8±2.7 cGy for the naked, 241.0±1.5 cGy when 0.5 cm bolus was used and 255.3±2.7 cGy when 1 cm bolus was used. CONCLUSION: As a result of this study, partially wide tangent field was found to be the most appropriate technique in terms of the dose distribution, treatment planning and set-up procedure. The main disadvantage of this technique was the higher dose to the contralateral breast comparing the other techniques.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to find the most appropriate technique for postmastectomy chest wall (CW) and lymphatic irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Partially wide tangent, 30/70 photon/electron mix, 20/80 photon/electron mix and CW and internal mammary en face electron field, were studied on computerized tomography (CT) scans of 10 left breast carcinomapatients and dosimetric calculations have been studied. Dose volume histograms (DVH) obtained from treatment planning system (TPS) were used for minimal, maximal and mean doses received by the clinical target volumes and critical structures. RESULTS: Partially wide tangent field resulted in the most homogeneous dose distribution for the CW and a significantly lower lung and heart doses compared with all other techniques. However, right breast dose was significantly higher for partially wide tangent technique than that each of the other techniques. Approximately 0.6-7.9% differences were found between thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and treatment planning system (TPS). The daily surface doses calculating using Gafchromic® external beam therapy (EBT) dosimetry films were 161.8±2.7 cGy for the naked, 241.0±1.5 cGy when 0.5 cm bolus was used and 255.3±2.7 cGy when 1 cm bolus was used. CONCLUSION: As a result of this study, partially wide tangent field was found to be the most appropriate technique in terms of the dose distribution, treatment planning and set-up procedure. The main disadvantage of this technique was the higher dose to the contralateral breast comparing the other techniques.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; dosimetry; radiation; techniques; treatment
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: J Ragaz; S M Jackson; N Le; I H Plenderleith; J J Spinelli; V E Basco; K S Wilson; M A Knowling; C M Coppin; M Paradis; A J Coldman; I A Olivotto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lori J Pierce; James B Butler; Mary K Martel; Daniel P Normolle; Tod Koelling; Robin B Marsh; Allen S Lichter; Benedick A Fraass Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: L B Marks; M E Hebert; G Bentel; D P Spencer; G W Sherouse; L R Prosnitz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038