Yun Zhang1, Yuling Huang1, Shenggou Ding1, Xingxing Yuan1, Yuxian Shu1, Jinhui Liang1, Qingfeng Mao1, Chunling Jiang2,3,4, Jingao Li1,5,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330029, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330029, People's Republic of China. ndzhlyy0756@ncu.edu.cn. 3. Medical College of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jangxi, 330031, People's Republic of China. ndzhlyy0756@ncu.edu.cn. 4. Key Laboratory of Personalized Diagnosis and Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330029, People's Republic of China. ndzhlyy0756@ncu.edu.cn. 5. Medical College of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jangxi, 330031, People's Republic of China. 6. Key Laboratory of Personalized Diagnosis and Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330029, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), secondary cancer complication probabilities (SCCP), and excess absolute risk (EAR) differences of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for left-sided breast cancer after mastectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with left-sided breast cancer treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) were randomly enrolled in this study. Both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were created for each patient. Planning target volume (PTV) doses for the chest wall and internal mammary nodes, PTV1, and PTV of the supraclavicular nodes, PTV2, of 50 Gy were prescribed in 25 fractions. The plans were evaluated based on PTV1 and PTV2 coverage, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index, conformity number (CN), dose to organs at risk, NTCP, SCCP, EAR, number of monitors units, and beam delivery time. RESULTS: VMAT resulted in more homogeneous chest wall coverage than did IMRT. The percent volume of PTV1 that received the prescribed dose of VMRT and IMRT was 95.9 ± 1.2% and 94.5 ± 1.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The HI was 0.11 ± 0.01 for VMAT and 0.12 ± 0.02 for IMRT, respectively (p = 0.001). The VMAT plan had better conformity (CN: 0.84 ± 0.02 vs. 0.78 ± 0.04, p < 0.001) in PTV compared with IMRT. As opposed to IMRT plans, VMAT delivered a lower mean dose to the ipsilateral lung (11.5 Gy vs 12.6 Gy) and heart (5.2 Gy vs 6.0 Gy) and significantly reduced the V5, V10, V20, V30, and V40 of the ipsilateral lung and heart; only the differences in V5 of the ipsilateral lung did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.409). Although the volume of the ipsilateral lung and heart encompassed by the 2.5 Gy isodose line (V2.5) was increased by 6.7% and 7.7% (p < 0.001, p = 0.002), the NTCP was decreased by 0.8% and 0.6%, and SCCP and EAR were decreased by 1.9% and 0.1% for the ipsilateral lung. No significant differences were observed in the contralateral lung/breast V2.5, V5, V10, V20, mean dose, SCCP, and EAR. Finally, VMAT reduced the number of monitor units by 31.5% and the treatment time by 71.4%, as compared with IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IMRT, VMAT is the optimal technique for PMRT patients with left-sided breast cancer due to better target coverage, a lower dose delivered, NTCP, SCCP, and EAR to the ipsilateral lung and heart, similar doses delivered to the contralateral lung and breast, fewer monitor units and a shorter delivery time.
BACKGROUND: To compare the dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), secondary cancer complication probabilities (SCCP), and excess absolute risk (EAR) differences of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for left-sided breast cancer after mastectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with left-sided breast cancer treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) were randomly enrolled in this study. Both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were created for each patient. Planning target volume (PTV) doses for the chest wall and internal mammary nodes, PTV1, and PTV of the supraclavicular nodes, PTV2, of 50 Gy were prescribed in 25 fractions. The plans were evaluated based on PTV1 and PTV2 coverage, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index, conformity number (CN), dose to organs at risk, NTCP, SCCP, EAR, number of monitors units, and beam delivery time. RESULTS: VMAT resulted in more homogeneous chest wall coverage than did IMRT. The percent volume of PTV1 that received the prescribed dose of VMRT and IMRT was 95.9 ± 1.2% and 94.5 ± 1.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The HI was 0.11 ± 0.01 for VMAT and 0.12 ± 0.02 for IMRT, respectively (p = 0.001). The VMAT plan had better conformity (CN: 0.84 ± 0.02 vs. 0.78 ± 0.04, p < 0.001) in PTV compared with IMRT. As opposed to IMRT plans, VMAT delivered a lower mean dose to the ipsilateral lung (11.5 Gy vs 12.6 Gy) and heart (5.2 Gy vs 6.0 Gy) and significantly reduced the V5, V10, V20, V30, and V40 of the ipsilateral lung and heart; only the differences in V5 of the ipsilateral lung did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.409). Although the volume of the ipsilateral lung and heart encompassed by the 2.5 Gy isodose line (V2.5) was increased by 6.7% and 7.7% (p < 0.001, p = 0.002), the NTCP was decreased by 0.8% and 0.6%, and SCCP and EAR were decreased by 1.9% and 0.1% for the ipsilateral lung. No significant differences were observed in the contralateral lung/breast V2.5, V5, V10, V20, mean dose, SCCP, and EAR. Finally, VMAT reduced the number of monitor units by 31.5% and the treatment time by 71.4%, as compared with IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IMRT, VMAT is the optimal technique for PMRT patients with left-sided breast cancer due to better target coverage, a lower dose delivered, NTCP, SCCP, and EAR to the ipsilateral lung and heart, similar doses delivered to the contralateral lung and breast, fewer monitor units and a shorter delivery time.
Authors: Editha A Krueger; Benedick A Fraass; Daniel L McShan; Robin Marsh; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Marciana-Nona Duma; René Baumann; Wilfried Budach; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Thomas Hehr; David Krug; Marc D Piroth; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Rolf Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: D K Gaffney; D D Leavitt; A Tsodikov; L Smith; G Watson; G Patton; F A Gibbs; J R Stewart Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carmen C Popescu; Ivo A Olivotto; Wayne A Beckham; Will Ansbacher; Sergei Zavgorodni; Richard Shaffer; Elaine S Wai; Karl Otto Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel R Zwahlen; Jeremy D Ruben; Phillip Jones; Frank Gagliardi; Jeremy L Millar; Uwe Schneider Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038