PURPOSE: To investigate the plan quality and doses to the heart, contralateral breast (CB), ipsilateral lung (IL), and contralateral lung (CL) in tangential breast treatments using the Halcyon linac with megavoltage setup fields. METHODS: Radiotherapy treatment plans with tangential beams from 25 breast cancer patients previously treated on a C-arm linac were replanned for Halcyon. Thirteen corresponded to right-sided breasts and 12 to left-sided breasts, all with a dose prescription of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Plans were created with the following setup imaging techniques: low-dose (LD) MVCBCT, high-quality (HQ) MVCBCT, LD-MV and HQ-MV pairs and the imaging dose was included in the plans. Plan quality metric values for the lumpectomy cavity, whole-breast and doses to the organs at risk (OARs) were measured and compared with those from the original plans. RESULTS: No significant differences in plan quality were observed between the original and Halcyon plans. An increase in the mean dose (Mean) for all the organs was observed for the Halcyon plans. For right-sided plans, the accumulated Mean over the 25 fractions in the C-arm plans was 0.4 ± 0.3, 0.2 ± 0.2, 5.4 ± 1.3, and 0.1 ± 0.1 Gy for the heart, CB, IL, and CL, respectively, while values in the MVCBCT-LD Halcyon plans were 1.2 ± 0.2, 0.6 ± 0.1, 6.5 ± 1.4, and 0.4 ± 0.1 Gy, respectively. For left-sided treatments, Mean in the original plans was 0.9 ± 0.2, 0.1 ± 0.0, 4.2 ± 1.2, and 0.0 ± 0.0 Gy, while for the MVCBCT-LD Halcyon plans values were 1.9 ± 0.2, 0.6 ± 0.2, 5.1 ± 1.2, and 0.5 ± 0.2 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Plan quality for breast treatments using Halcyon is similar to the quality for a 6 MV, C-arm plan. For treatments using megavoltage setup fields, the dose contribution to OARs from the imaging fields can be equal or higher than the dose from treatment fields.
PURPOSE: To investigate the plan quality and doses to the heart, contralateral breast (CB), ipsilateral lung (IL), and contralateral lung (CL) in tangential breast treatments using the Halcyon linac with megavoltage setup fields. METHODS: Radiotherapy treatment plans with tangential beams from 25 breast cancerpatients previously treated on a C-arm linac were replanned for Halcyon. Thirteen corresponded to right-sided breasts and 12 to left-sided breasts, all with a dose prescription of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Plans were created with the following setup imaging techniques: low-dose (LD) MVCBCT, high-quality (HQ) MVCBCT, LD-MV and HQ-MV pairs and the imaging dose was included in the plans. Plan quality metric values for the lumpectomy cavity, whole-breast and doses to the organs at risk (OARs) were measured and compared with those from the original plans. RESULTS: No significant differences in plan quality were observed between the original and Halcyon plans. An increase in the mean dose (Mean) for all the organs was observed for the Halcyon plans. For right-sided plans, the accumulated Mean over the 25 fractions in the C-arm plans was 0.4 ± 0.3, 0.2 ± 0.2, 5.4 ± 1.3, and 0.1 ± 0.1 Gy for the heart, CB, IL, and CL, respectively, while values in the MVCBCT-LD Halcyon plans were 1.2 ± 0.2, 0.6 ± 0.1, 6.5 ± 1.4, and 0.4 ± 0.1 Gy, respectively. For left-sided treatments, Mean in the original plans was 0.9 ± 0.2, 0.1 ± 0.0, 4.2 ± 1.2, and 0.0 ± 0.0 Gy, while for the MVCBCT-LD Halcyon plans values were 1.9 ± 0.2, 0.6 ± 0.2, 5.1 ± 1.2, and 0.5 ± 0.2 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Plan quality for breast treatments using Halcyon is similar to the quality for a 6 MV, C-arm plan. For treatments using megavoltage setup fields, the dose contribution to OARs from the imaging fields can be equal or higher than the dose from treatment fields.
Authors: Martin J Murphy; James Balter; Stephen Balter; Jose A BenComo; Indra J Das; Steve B Jiang; C M Ma; Gustavo H Olivera; Raymond F Rodebaugh; Kenneth J Ruchala; Hiroki Shirato; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Leah K Schubert; Vinai Gondi; Evan Sengbusch; David C Westerly; Emilie T Soisson; Bhudatt R Paliwal; Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Minesh P Mehta; Rakesh R Patel; Wolfgang A Tomé; George M Cannon Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Saskia Litière; Gustavo Werutsky; Ian S Fentiman; Emiel Rutgers; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Erik Van Limbergen; Margreet H A Baaijens; Jan Bogaerts; Harry Bartelink Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Andrew R Barsky; Michele M Kim; Alexandra Dreyfuss; Lei Dong; James M Metz; Shibu Anamalayil; Taoran Li; Neil K Taunk Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-02-08
Authors: Eric Laugeman; Ana Heermann; Jessica Hilliard; Michael Watts; Marshia Roberson; Robert Morris; Sreekrishna Goddu; Abhishek Sethi; Imran Zoberi; Hyun Kim; Sasa Mutic; Geoffrey Hugo; Bin Cai Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Steve Heymann; Giovanna Dipasquale; Nam P Nguyen; Meymey San; Olena Gorobets; Nicolas Leduc; Dirk Verellen; Guy Storme; Hilde Van Parijs; Mark De Ridder; Vincent Vinh-Hung Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020 Jan-Dec
Authors: Damodar Pokhrel; Tanner Tackett; Joseph Stephen; Justin Visak; Falguni Amin-Zimmerman; Andrew McGregor; Stephen E Strup; William St Clair Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Damodar Pokhrel; Justin Visak; Lana C Critchfield; Joseph Stephen; Mark E Bernard; Marcus Randall; Mahesh Kudrimoti Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-20 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Anne Richter; Sonja Wegener; Kathrin Breuer; Gary Razinskas; Stefan Weick; Florian Exner; Klaus Bratengeier; Michael Flentje; Otto Sauer; Bülent Polat Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 3.481