A dosimetric comparative study following RTOG and ESTRO contouring guidelines for breast radiation therapy |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Radiotherapy Oncology Department, Shohada-e Tajrish Educational Hospital, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;2. Department of Control Engineering, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran;3. Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;4. Proteomics Research Center and Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Qods Square, Darband Street, Tehran, Iran;5. Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran;1. Département de radiothérapie, centre Georges-François-Leclerc, 1, rue du Professeur-Marion, 21079 Dijon, France;2. Service de radiothérapie oncologie, institut du cancer de Montpellier (ICM) - Val d’Aurelle, parc Euromédecine, 208, avenue des Apothicaires, 34090 Montpellier, France;3. Département de radiothérapie, institut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse - Oncopole, 1, avenue Irène-Joliot-Curie, 31100 Toulouse, France;4. Département de radiothérapie et de physique médicale, Quantif-Litis EA 4108, centre Henri-Becquerel, 76038 Rouen, France;1. Service de radiothérapie, centre Henry-S-Kaplan, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France;2. Institut Inter-régional de cancérologie, centre Jean-Bernard, clinique Victor-Hugo, Le Mans, France;1. Department of radiation oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France;2. Department of surgery, Institut Curie, Paris, France;3. Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin, Versailles, France;1. Association d’Oncologie Radiothérapie du Maroc (AORAM), Casablanca, Maroc;2. Hôpital Militaire d’Instruction Mohammed-V, Rabat, Maroc;3. Université Mohammed-V, Rabat, Maroc;4. Centre d’oncologie Mohammed VI- CHU de Casablanca, Casablanca, Maroc;5. Université Hassan II, Casablanca, Maroc;6. Institut National d’Oncologie (INO), Rabat, Maroc;7. Centre universitaire d’oncologie, Agadir, Maroc;8. Centre universitaire d’oncologie, Tanger, Maroc;9. Centre international d’oncologie, Fès, Maroc;10. Clinique spécialisée d’oncologie Menara, Marrakech, Maroc;11. Clinique d’oncologie Ryad, Casablanca, Maroc;1. Radiotherapy department, Centre Léonard de Vinci, Dechy, France, CRIStAL lab, UMR9189, University of Lille, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France, H.Warembourg, School of medicine, University of Lille, Lille, France;2. Service d’Oncologie Radiothérapie–Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France;3. Département de radiothérapie, centre Antoine-Lacassagne, université de Nice-Sophia, Nice, France;4. Département de radiothérapie, centre Alexis Vautrin, Vand?uvre-lès-Nancy, France;5. Radiotherapy Department, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France;6. Service de cancérologie-radiothérapie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, 75475 Paris, France;7. Service d’oncologie radiothérapie–centre hospitalier universitaire Pitié Salpêtrière–Assistance publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris 75013, France;1. Department of Radiation Therapy, centre François-Baclesse, 14000 Caen, France;2. Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire, IN2P3, EnsiCaen, CNRS UMR 6534, Normandie université, 14000 Caen, France |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeTo compare the dosimetric parameters considering the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) guidelines for breast cancer radiotherapy. Two radiotherapy techniques, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), were considered.Patients and methodsTwenty-eight patients with left-sided medially-located TanyN2M0 tumors were contoured based on RTOG and ESTRO guidelines. 9-field IMRT, 10-field IMRT, 11-field IMRT, and VMAT treatment plans were applied as radiotherapy (RT) techniques for both contouring sets. The dosimetric parameters of the RT plans were extracted and compared.ResultsComparing dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of OARs across the contouring guidelines and considering each RT technique showed that the only significant differences were higher Dmax, Dmean, V30, and V45, EUD, and NTCP of the thyroid in all treatment modalities when the RTOG guideline had been adopted. Using the VMAT technique, PTV's EUD and the tumor control probability (TCP) were considerably higher when the ESTRO guideline was adopted. Moreover, the conformity index (CI) of VMAT plans was significantly higher when the ESTRO guideline was used.ConclusionUnless having higher doses to thyroid when the RTOG guideline was adopted, the doses to other organs-at-risk (OAR) were similar between the two considering guidelines. Moreover, except for higher EUD, TCP, and CI for VMAT when the ESTRO guideline was used, no other significant differences were obtained between dosimetric parameters of target volumes considering the RT techniques and contouring guidelines. |
| |
| Keywords: | Breast cancer Intensity-modulated radiotherapy Volumetric-modulated arc therapy RTOG ESTRO Cancer du sein Radiothérapie avec modulation d’intensité Arcthérapie à modulation volumétrique RTOG ESTRO |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
