Dosimetric comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for adjuvant treatment of bilateral breast cancer

Purpose:Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer (BBC).Materials and methods:Ten patients treated on HT were selected retrospectively. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions to breast/chest wal...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of radiotherapy in practice 2022-03, Vol.21 (1), p.36-44
Hauptverfasser: Phurailatpam, Reena, Wadasadawala, Tabassum, Chauhan, Kamalnayan, Panda, Subhajit, Sarin, Rajiv
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose:Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer (BBC).Materials and methods:Ten patients treated on HT were selected retrospectively. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions to breast/chest wall and supraclavicular fossa (SCF) while tumour bed was simultaneously boosted to 61 Gy in 25 fractions. VMAT plans were made with four mono-isocentric partial arcs. The monitoring unit (MU) and treatment time were used to quantify the treatment efficiency. Target volumes were compared for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) while organs at risk (OARs) were compared for relevant dose volumes and integral doses (IDs).Result:For targets, no significant difference is observed between VMAT and HT in CI but VMAT could give better HI. The mean lung dose, V20 and V5 is 10·6 Gy versus 8·4 Gy (p-value 0·03), 12% versus 11·5% (p-value 0·5) and 78·1% versus 43·4% (p-value 0·005), respectively. The mean heart dose, V30 and V5 is 4·9 Gy versus 4·7 Gy (p-value 0·88), 0·5% versus 1·5% (p-value 0·18) and 26·2% versus 22·8% (p-value 0·4). Integral dose (ID) for the whole body and heart are comparable: 289 Gy kg versus 299 Gy kg (p-value 0·24) and 2·9 Gy kg versus 2·8 Gy kg (p-value 0·80). ID for lungs was significantly higher with VMAT: 7·9 Gy kg versus 6·3 Gy kg (p-value 0·03). There is a 53% reduction in treatment time and 78% in MU with VMAT against HT.Conclusion:VMAT can generate clinically acceptable plans comparable to HT for BBC. HT shows better control over low dose spillage in lungs compared to VMAT thereby increasing ID to lungs. VMAT shows better homogeneity and efficient treatment delivery than HT.
ISSN:1460-3969
1467-1131
DOI:10.1017/S1460396920000795