Evren Ozan Göksel1, Evrim Tezcanli2,3, Alptekin Arifoğlu4, Halil Küçücük4, Öznur Şenkesen1, Ufuk Abacıoğlu5, Işık Aslay4, Meriç Şengöz5. 1. Radiotherapy Program, Vocational School of Health Services, Acibadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. General Senology Department, Research Institute of Senology, Acibadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey. tezcanlievrim@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem Altunizade Hospital, 34662, Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey. tezcanlievrim@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem Altunizade Hospital, 34662, Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ESTRO-ACROP Consensus Guideline (EACG) recommends implant excluded clinical target volume (CTVp) definitions for post-mastectomy radiation therapy after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of Helical Tomotherapy (HTp) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMATp) treatment techniques in terms of CTVp coverage and reduced organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue and implant doses when CTVp was used for treatment planning as the target structure instead of conventional CTV. METHODS: Eight left-sided and eight right-sided breast cancer patients who underwent IBR after mastectomy were included in this study. Planning CT data sets were acquired during free breathing and patients were treated with HT technique targeted to conventional CTV. Retrospectively, CTVp was delineated based on EACG by the same radiation oncologist, and treatment plans with HTp and VMATp techniques were generated based on CTVp. For each patient, relevant dosimetric parameters were obtained from three different treatment plans. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference on target coverage in terms of, PTVp-D95, PTVp-Vpres, homogeneity index (p > 0.05) between HTp and VMATp plans. But, the conformity numbers were significantly higher (HTp vs VMATp, 0.69 ± 0.15 vs 0.79 ± 0.12) for VMATp (Z = - 2.17, p = 0.030). While HTp significantly lowered Dmax and Dmean for LAD (LAD-Dmax: χ2 = 12.25, p = 0.002 and LAD-Dmean: χ2 = 12.30, p = 0.002), neither HTp nor VMATp could reduce maximum and mean dose to heart (p > 0.05). Furthermore, heart volume receiving 5 Gy was significantly higher for VMATp when compared to HTp (21.2 ± 9.8 vs 42.7 ± 24.8, p: 0.004). Both techniques succeeded in reducing the mean dose to implant (HTp vs HT, p < 0.001; VMATp vs HT, p < 0.001; VMATp vs HTp, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Both HTp and VMATp techniques succeeded to obtain conformal and homogeneous dose distributions within CTVp while reducing the mean implant dose. HTp was found to be superior to VMATp with regards to lowering all OAR doses except for CB.
BACKGROUND: The ESTRO-ACROP Consensus Guideline (EACG) recommends implant excluded clinical target volume (CTVp) definitions for post-mastectomy radiation therapy after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of Helical Tomotherapy (HTp) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMATp) treatment techniques in terms of CTVp coverage and reduced organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue and implant doses when CTVp was used for treatment planning as the target structure instead of conventional CTV. METHODS: Eight left-sided and eight right-sided breast cancer patients who underwent IBR after mastectomy were included in this study. Planning CT data sets were acquired during free breathing and patients were treated with HT technique targeted to conventional CTV. Retrospectively, CTVp was delineated based on EACG by the same radiation oncologist, and treatment plans with HTp and VMATp techniques were generated based on CTVp. For each patient, relevant dosimetric parameters were obtained from three different treatment plans. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference on target coverage in terms of, PTVp-D95, PTVp-Vpres, homogeneity index (p > 0.05) between HTp and VMATp plans. But, the conformity numbers were significantly higher (HTp vs VMATp, 0.69 ± 0.15 vs 0.79 ± 0.12) for VMATp (Z = - 2.17, p = 0.030). While HTp significantly lowered Dmax and Dmean for LAD (LAD-Dmax: χ2 = 12.25, p = 0.002 and LAD-Dmean: χ2 = 12.30, p = 0.002), neither HTp nor VMATp could reduce maximum and mean dose to heart (p > 0.05). Furthermore, heart volume receiving 5 Gy was significantly higher for VMATp when compared to HTp (21.2 ± 9.8 vs 42.7 ± 24.8, p: 0.004). Both techniques succeeded in reducing the mean dose to implant (HTp vs HT, p < 0.001; VMATp vs HT, p < 0.001; VMATp vs HTp, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Both HTp and VMATp techniques succeeded to obtain conformal and homogeneous dose distributions within CTVp while reducing the mean implant dose. HTp was found to be superior to VMATp with regards to lowering all OAR doses except for CB.
Authors: Søren M Bentzen; Louis S Constine; Joseph O Deasy; Avi Eisbruch; Andrew Jackson; Lawrence B Marks; Randall K Ten Haken; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria Cristina Leonardi; Ruggero Spoto; Eleonora Miglietta; Sara Trivellato; Eliana La Rocca; Rosa Luraschi; Paola Grosso; Francesca De Lorenzi; Cristiana Fodor; Samantha Dicuonzo; Veronica Dell'Acqua; Marianna Alessandra Gerardi; Anna Morra; Claudia Maria Francia; Mario Rietjens; Viviana Enrica Galimberti; Paolo Veronesi; Roberto Orecchia; Federica Cattani; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Weili Wang; Yaping Xu; Matthew Schipper; Martha M Matuszak; Timothy Ritter; Yue Cao; Randall K Ten Haken; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038