Literature DB >> 33124774

A study of the dosimetric impact of daily setup variations measured with cone-beam CT on three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer delivered in the prone position.

Annie Xiao1, Jessica Jutzy2, Greg Hubert3, Meghan Edens2, Maxine Washington4, Yasmin Hasan2, Steven J Chmura2, Hania A Al-Hallaq2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric impact of daily positioning variations measured with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on whole-breast radiotherapy patients treated in the prone position.
METHODS: Daily CBCT was prospectively acquired for 30 consecutive patients positioned prone. Treatment for early-stage (≤II) breast cancer was prescribed with standard dose (50 Gy/25 fractions) or hypofractionation (42.56 Gy/16 fractions) for 13 and 17 patients, respectively. Systematic and random errors were calculated from the translational CBCT shifts and used to determine population-based setup margins. Mean translations (±one standard deviation) for each patient were used to simulate the dosimetric impact on targets (PTV_eval and lumpectomy cavity), heart, and lung. Paired Student's t tests at α = 0.01 were used to compare dose metrics after correction for multiple testing (P < 0.002). Significant correlation coefficients were used to identify associations (P < 0.01).
RESULTS: Of 597 total fractions, 20 ± 13% required patient rotation. Mean translations were 0.29 ± 0.27 cm, 0.41 ± 0.34 cm, and 0.48 ± 0.33 cm in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and lateral directions leading to calculated setup margins of 0.63, 0.88, and 1.10 cm, respectively. Average three-dimensional (3D) shifts correlated with the maximum distance of breast tissue from the sternum (r = 0.62) but not with body-mass index. Simulated shifts showed significant, but minor, changes in dose metrics for PTV_eval, lung, and heart. For left-sided treatments (n = 18), mean heart dose increased from 109 ± 75 cGy to 148 ± 115 cGy. Shifts from the original plan caused PTV_eval hotspots (V105%) to increase by 5.2% ± 3.8%, which correlated with the total MU of wedged fields (r = 0.59). No significant change in V95% to the cavity was found.
CONCLUSIONS: Large translational variations that occur when positioning prone breast patients had small but significant dosimetric effects on 3DCRT plans. Daily CBCT may still be necessary to correct for rotational variations that occur in 20% of treatments. To maintain planned dose metrics, unintended beam shifts toward the heart and the contribution of wedged fields should be minimized.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; cone-beam CT; prone positioning; setup margins; whole-breast radiotherapy

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33124774      PMCID: PMC7769386          DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys        ISSN: 1526-9914            Impact factor:   2.102


  30 in total

Review 1.  Errors and margins in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Marcel van Herk
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.934

2.  Feasibility evaluation of prone breast irradiation with the Sagittilt© system including residual-intrafractional error assessment.

Authors:  F Lakosi; A Gulyban; S Ben-Mustapha Simoni; P Viet Nguyen; P Berkovic; M Noël; N Gourmet; P Coucke
Journal:  Cancer Radiother       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 1.018

Review 3.  Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials.

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

4.  Prone hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy without a boost to the tumor bed: comparable toxicity of IMRT versus a 3D conformal technique.

Authors:  Matthew E Hardee; Shahzad Raza; Stewart J Becker; Gabor Jozsef; Stella C Lymberis; Tsivia Hochman; Judith D Goldberg; Keith J DeWyngaert; Silvia C Formenti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Alternated prone and supine whole-breast irradiation using IMRT: setup precision, respiratory movement and treatment time.

Authors:  Liv Veldeman; Werner De Gersem; Bruno Speleers; Bart Truyens; Annick Van Greveling; Rudy Van den Broecke; Wilfried De Neve
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Feasibility and acute toxicity of hypofractionated radiation in large-breasted patients.

Authors:  Paige L Dorn; Kimberly S Corbin; Hania Al-Hallaq; Yasmin Hasan; Steven J Chmura
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 7.  The Role of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer Responding to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jose G Bazan; Julia R White
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 5.934

8.  Efficacy and workload analysis of a fixed vertical couch position technique and a fixed-action-level protocol in whole-breast radiotherapy.

Authors:  Saskia Petillion; Karolien Verhoeven; Caroline Weltens; Frank Van den Heuvel
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-03-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  An investigation of image guidance dose for breast radiotherapy.

Authors:  Rosemerie Alvarado; Jeremy T Booth; Regina M Bromley; Helen B Gustafsson
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Breast-conserving Surgery Rates in Breast Cancer Patients With Different Molecular Subtypes: An Observational Study Based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database.

Authors:  Kai Chen; Shunrong Li; Qian Li; Liling Zhu; Yujie Liu; Erwei Song; Fengxi Su
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.