The dosimetric impact of respiratory breast movement and daily setup error on tangential whole breast irradiation using conventional wedge,field-in-field and irregular surface compensator techniques

To evaluate the dosimetric impact of respiratory breast motion and daily setup error on whole breast irradiation (WBI) using three irradiation techniques; conventional wedge (CW), field-in-field (FIF) and irregular surface compensator (ISC). WBI was planned for 16 breast cancer patients. The dose indices for evaluated clinical target volume (CTV_evl), lung, and body were evaluated. For the anterior-posterior (AP) respiratory motion and setup error of a single fraction, the isocenter was moved according to a sine function, and the dose indices were averaged over one period. Furthermore, the dose indices were weighted according to setup error frequencies that have a normal distribution to model systematic and random setup error for the entire treatment course. In all irradiation techniques, AP movement has a significant impact on dose distribution. CTV_evlD₉₅ (the minimum relative dose that covers 95 % volume) and V₉₅ (the relative volume receiving 95 % of the prescribed dose) were observed to significantly decrease from the original ISC plan when simulated for the entire treatment course. In contrast, the D₉₅, V₉₅ and dose homogeneity index did not significantly differ from those of the original plans for FIF and CW. With regard to lung dose, the effect of motion was very similar among all three techniques. The dosimetric impact of AP respiratory breast motion and setup error was largest for the ISC technique, and the second greatest effect was observed with the FIF technique. However, these variations are relatively small.     

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy for left-sided breast cancer and all regional nodes improves target volumes coverage and reduces treatment time and doses to the heart and left coronary artery,compared with a field-in-field technique

We compared two intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for left-sided breast treatment, involving lymph node irradiation including the internal mammary chain. Inverse planned arc-therapy (VMAT) was compared with a forward-planned multi-segment technique with a mono-isocenter (MONOISO). Ten files were planned per technique, delivering a 50-Gy dose to the breast and 46.95 Gy to nodes, within 25 fractions. Comparative endpoints were planning target volume (PTV) coverage, dose to surrounding structures, and treatment delivery time. PTV coverage, homogeneity and conformality were better for two arc VMAT plans; V95%^PTV-T was 96% for VMAT vs 89.2% for MONOISO. Homogeneity index (HI)^PTV-T was 0.1 and HI^PTV-N was 0.1 for VMAT vs 0.6 and 0.5 for MONOISO. Treatment delivery time was reduced by a factor of two using VMAT relative to MONOISO (84 s vs 180 s). High doses to organs at risk were reduced (V30^{left lung} = 14% using VMAT vs 24.4% with MONOISO; dose to 2% of the volume (D2%)^heart = 26.1 Gy vs 32 Gy), especially to the left coronary artery (LCA) (D2%^LCA = 34.4 Gy vs 40.3 Gy). However, VMAT delivered low doses to a larger volume, including contralateral organs (mean dose [Dmean]^{right lung} = 4 Gy and Dmean^{right breast} = 3.2 Gy). These were better protected using MONOISO plans (Dmean^{right lung} = 0.8 Gy and Dmean^{right breast} = 0.4 Gy). VMAT improved PTV coverage and dose homogeneity, but clinical benefits remain unclear. Decreased dose exposure to the LCA may be clinically relevant. VMAT could be used for complex treatments that are difficult with conventional techniques. Patient age should be considered because of uncertainties concerning secondary malignancies.     

楔形野与野中野在三维适形治疗计划的剂量对比研究

目的：比较研究楔形过滤板射野（Wedge Filter）与野中野（FIF：Field-in-Field）在放疗时靶区及周围正常组织照射剂量的差异。方法：随机选择骨（腰椎）转移癌,脑癌,乳腺癌,食管癌,肺癌共24例,进行CT扫描,靶区和危及器官（OAR）的勾画,用三维治疗计划系统进行楔形野计划（Wedge Plan）和野中野计划（FIF Plan）设计,并进行结果对比分析。结果：FIF计划的剂量均匀性（HI）和适形度（CI）要优于Wedge计划,P值分别为0.001,0.007,同时FIF计划的跳数明显小于Wedge计划的跳数,其差异具有统计学意义（P=0.00）,而PTV的靶区覆盖率（V95%）和正常组织照射量差异没有明显的统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：与Wedge计划相比,FIF计划具有更好的适形度和剂量均匀性,在临床中应用中,可减低机器损耗,提高工作效率,值得在临床工作中推广使用。     

Skin Toxicity in Early Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Field-In-Field Breast Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Helical Inverse Breast Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: Results of a Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial

AimsSkin toxicity is a common adverse effect of breast radiotherapy. We investigated whether inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) would reduce the incidence of skin toxicity compared with forward field-in-field breast IMRT (FiF-IMRT) in early stage breast cancer.Materials and methodsThis phase III randomised controlled trial compared whole-breast irradiation with either FiF-IMRT or helical tomotherapy IMRT (HT-IMRT), with skin toxicity as the primary end point. Patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions and were assessed to compare skin toxicity between treatment arms.ResultsIn total, 177 patients were available for assessment and the median follow-up was 73.1 months. Inverse IMRT achieved more homogeneous coverage than FiF-IMRT; erythema and moist desquamation were higher with FiF-IMRT compared with HT-IMRT (61% versus 34%; P < 0.001; 33% versus 11%; P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed large breast volume, FiF-IMRT and chemotherapy were independent factors associated with worse acute toxicity. There was no difference between treatment arms in the incidence of late toxicities. The 5-year recurrence-free survival was 96.3% for both FiF-IMRT and HT-IMRT and the 5-year overall survival was 96.3% for FiF-IMRT and 97.4% for HT-IMRT.ConclusionsOur study showed significant reduction in acute skin toxicity using HT-IMRT compared with FiF-IMRT, without significant reduction in late skin toxicities. On the basis of these findings, inverse-planned IMRT could be used in routine practice for whole-breast irradiation with careful plan optimisation to achieve the required dose constraints for organs at risk.     

乳腺癌保乳术后四种不同放疗计划模式的剂量学研究

目的 对乳腺癌保乳术后患者设计野中野调强放射治疗(FIF-IMRT)、混合调强放射治疗(Hy-IMRT)、静态调强放射治疗(S-IMRT)、容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)四种不同放疗计划,比较四种不同放疗计划模式下的剂量学差异.方法 纳入于2019年1月至6月在广西医科大学第一附属医院确诊为乳腺癌且行保乳术后的22例...     

Performance evaluation of field-in-field technique for tangential breast irradiation

Conventional hard or dynamic wedge systems are commonly applied to reduce the dose inhomogeneity associated with whole breast irradiation. We evaluated the dosimetric benefits of the field-in-field (FIF) technique by comparing it with the electronic compensator (EC), Varian enhanced dynamic wedge (EW) and conventional hard wedge (HW) techniques. Data were obtained from 12 patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery (six left-sided and six right-sided). For these patients, the average breast planning target volume (PTV) was 447.4 cm(3) (range, 211.6-711.8 cm(3)). For the experiments, a 6 MV photon beam from a Varian 21 EX was used, the HW and EW angles were applied from 15 to 45 degrees, while 40-50% isodose values were chosen to achieve the best dose distribution for electronic compensation. In applying the FIF technique, we used two or three subfields for each portal. To evaluate the performance for each planning technique, we analysed a dose-volume histogram (DVH) for the PTV and organs-at-risk (OARs). To evaluate the effects of these techniques on dose inhomogeneity, we defined the PTV Dose Improvement (PDI) index, which was derived from a PTV volume between 97-103% of the differential DVHs. In addition, we compared the average monitor units (MUs) for each technique. The average PDI index with FIF is 76.4%, while the PDI indices for other treatments were 65.8, 41.8 and 50.9% for EC, EW and HW, respectively. This study demonstrated an improved performance using the FIF technique compared with the conventional HW/EW system, as well as a new modality for EC. We demonstrated that FIF is a very useful technique for improving PTV conformity, while protecting the OARs from breast tangential irradiation.     

乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强与三维适形野中野放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后静态逆向调强(IMRT)与三维适形野中野瘤床同步加量(FIF)两种放疗技术的剂量学差异。方法 选择9例左侧早期乳腺癌保乳术后患者,分别设计IMRT与FIF两组放疗计划,处方剂量为乳房靶区50.4 Gy,分28次,每次1.8 Gy;瘤床靶区61.6 Gy,分28次,每次2.2 Gy。比较两组计划的靶区适形度及危及器官受量,并比较两者的计划优化和治疗时间。结果 IMRT的全乳靶区适形度(CI)为1.82±0.16,低于FIF的2.21±0.15(t=2.08,P<0.05);瘤床靶区适形度为1.19±0.04,低于FIF的1.59±0.11(t=3.97,P<0.05)。两组计划危及器官同侧肺的V₂₀和心脏的V₃₀无明显差异。FIF对侧肺的Dmax和Dmean分别是(5.41±2.76)和(0.51±0.10) Gy, IMRT分别为(25.72±2.61)和(7.46±0.39) Gy(t=-22.44、-21.14,P<0.05)。对侧乳房的Dmax和Dmean,FIF为(8.50±5.61)和(0.46±0.11) Gy,IMRT为(27.73±4.29)和(6.38±0.48) Gy(t=-5.66、-14.83,P<0.05)。对于对侧肺和乳房的低剂量照射区V₅,FIF为(0.09±0.09)%和(0.45±0.45)%,低于IMRT的(84.66±3.06)%和(60.79±4.94)%(t=-28.19、-12.80,P<0.05)。在计划优化及治疗时间方面,FIF与IMRT优化时间分别为(61.57±0.89)min和(241.28±1.06)min,单次治疗时间分别为(16.14±1.42)min和(29.85±0.59) min(t=-32.35、-8.82,P<0.05)。结论 IMRT改善了靶区适形度,但是增加了对侧肺和对侧乳房的受照剂量。FIF在计划优化时间及治疗时间方面有优势。     

Dosimetric Comparison of Three Different Radiotherapy Techniques in Antrum-Located Stomach Cancer

Background: The current optimal radiotherapy (RT) planning technique for stomach cancer is controversial. The design of RT for stomach cancer is difficult and differs according to tumor localization. Dosimetric and clinical studies have been performed in patients with different tumor localizations. This may be the main source of inconsistencies in study results. For this reason, we attempted to find the optimal RT technique for patients with stomach cancer in similar locations. Methods: This study was based on the computed tomography datasets of 20 patients with antrum-located stomach cancer. For each patient, treatments were designed using physical wedge-based conformal RT (WB-CRT), field-in-field intensity-modulated RT (FIF-IMRT), and dynamic intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). The techniques were compared in terms of expected target volume coverage and the dose to organs at risk (OAR) using a dose-volume histogram analysis. Results: FIF-IMRT was the most homogenous technique, with a better homogeneity index than WBCRT (p<0.001) or IMRT (p<0.001). However, IMRT had a better conformity index than WBCRT (p<0.001) or FIF-IMRT (p<0.001). Additionally, all OAR, including the kidneys, liver, and spinal cord, were better protected with IMRT than with WBCRT (p=0.023 to <0.001) or FIF-IMRT (p=0.028 to <0.001). Conclusions: In comparison to FIF-IMRT and WBCRT, IMRT appears to be the most appropriate technique for antrum-located stomach cancer. To establish whether IMRT is superior overall will require clinical studies, taking into account differences in both tumor localization (cardia, body, and antrum) and organ movement in patients with stomach cancer.