Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation
Purpose To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume. Materials and methods Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Japanese journal of radiology 2012-04, Vol.30 (3), p.218-226 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 226 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 218 |
| container_title | Japanese journal of radiology |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Onal, Cem Sonmez, Aydan Arslan, Gungor Oymak, Ezgi Kotek, Ayse Efe, Esma Sonmez, Serhat Dolek, Yemliha |
| description | Purpose
To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative whole breast radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans were generated: a standard tangential plan with either one outer field wedge or bilateral wedges, and an FIF plan. Three indices were used: the dose homogeneity index (DHI), PTV dose improvement index (PDI
index
) and geometric conformity index (
g
). Also ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast doses were compared for each plan.
Results
Dose homogeneity index was significantly lower for the FIF (0.117 ± 0.021) than for the single wedge (0.131 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.02) and double wedged plan (0.128 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.04), respectively. The
g
was significantly less in the FIF (0.70 ± 0.14) compared to the wedge plans (0.80 ± 0.17,
p
= 0.02 and 0.83 ± 0.16,
p
= 0.003). Contralateral breast doses were significantly lower in the FIF plan. The FIF plan significantly lowered MU compared to both the single wedge and bilateral wedge plans.
Conclusion
The dose distribution within the target was more homogenous, and the doses for healthy tissue were less in the FIF plan compared to the tangential wedge plans. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11604-011-0034-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1009801939</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2660319641</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-19d970387d29192d2866740eee07420f3f0bf8020024ac61b26f1bcdf92d01443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFrFTEQxoNUbK3-Ab2UQC-9RGeyIdkcS21VKHhR8LZkN5O-lN3kNdmH-N-b56tFBE8zQ37zZfg-xs4Q3iGAeV8RNSgBiAKgU8K8YCfYayMQ-u9Hz73BY_a61gcArTqlXrFjKbHvemlP2OZDrnGhtcSJT3nZuhJrTjwHvm6Ih0izFzGJ3w1fadqk-Lgj7lKbXLqntEY38x_k78nzkdxSeciFj4VcXXksxfno1pjTG_YyuLnS26d6yr7d3ny9_iTuvnz8fH11Jyal5SrQemug642XFq30stfaKCAiMEpC6AKMoQcJIJWbNI5SBxwnHxoLqFR3yi4PutuS26V1HZZYJ5pnlyjv6tCMsz2g7WxDL_5BH_KupHZdo7A51Wm7p_BATSXXWigM2xIXV342aK9mhkMMQ4th2McwmLZz_qS8Gxfyzxt_fG-APAC1PTUby99f_0_1F93wkbw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1013443699</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Onal, Cem ; Sonmez, Aydan ; Arslan, Gungor ; Oymak, Ezgi ; Kotek, Ayse ; Efe, Esma ; Sonmez, Serhat ; Dolek, Yemliha</creator><creatorcontrib>Onal, Cem ; Sonmez, Aydan ; Arslan, Gungor ; Oymak, Ezgi ; Kotek, Ayse ; Efe, Esma ; Sonmez, Serhat ; Dolek, Yemliha</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative whole breast radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans were generated: a standard tangential plan with either one outer field wedge or bilateral wedges, and an FIF plan. Three indices were used: the dose homogeneity index (DHI), PTV dose improvement index (PDI
index
) and geometric conformity index (
g
). Also ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast doses were compared for each plan.
Results
Dose homogeneity index was significantly lower for the FIF (0.117 ± 0.021) than for the single wedge (0.131 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.02) and double wedged plan (0.128 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.04), respectively. The
g
was significantly less in the FIF (0.70 ± 0.14) compared to the wedge plans (0.80 ± 0.17,
p
= 0.02 and 0.83 ± 0.16,
p
= 0.003). Contralateral breast doses were significantly lower in the FIF plan. The FIF plan significantly lowered MU compared to both the single wedge and bilateral wedge plans.
Conclusion
The dose distribution within the target was more homogenous, and the doses for healthy tissue were less in the FIF plan compared to the tangential wedge plans.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1867-1071</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1867-108X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11604-011-0034-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22183829</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Japan: Springer Japan</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Female ; Heart - radiation effects ; Humans ; Imaging ; Lung - radiation effects ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Nuclear Medicine ; Original Article ; Radiology ; Radiometry ; Radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Japanese journal of radiology, 2012-04, Vol.30 (3), p.218-226</ispartof><rights>Japan Radiological Society 2011</rights><rights>Japan Radiological Society 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-19d970387d29192d2866740eee07420f3f0bf8020024ac61b26f1bcdf92d01443</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-19d970387d29192d2866740eee07420f3f0bf8020024ac61b26f1bcdf92d01443</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11604-011-0034-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11604-011-0034-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22183829$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Onal, Cem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonmez, Aydan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, Gungor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oymak, Ezgi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotek, Ayse</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Efe, Esma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonmez, Serhat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dolek, Yemliha</creatorcontrib><title>Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation</title><title>Japanese journal of radiology</title><addtitle>Jpn J Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Jpn J Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative whole breast radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans were generated: a standard tangential plan with either one outer field wedge or bilateral wedges, and an FIF plan. Three indices were used: the dose homogeneity index (DHI), PTV dose improvement index (PDI
index
) and geometric conformity index (
g
). Also ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast doses were compared for each plan.
Results
Dose homogeneity index was significantly lower for the FIF (0.117 ± 0.021) than for the single wedge (0.131 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.02) and double wedged plan (0.128 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.04), respectively. The
g
was significantly less in the FIF (0.70 ± 0.14) compared to the wedge plans (0.80 ± 0.17,
p
= 0.02 and 0.83 ± 0.16,
p
= 0.003). Contralateral breast doses were significantly lower in the FIF plan. The FIF plan significantly lowered MU compared to both the single wedge and bilateral wedge plans.
Conclusion
The dose distribution within the target was more homogenous, and the doses for healthy tissue were less in the FIF plan compared to the tangential wedge plans.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Combined Modality Therapy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart - radiation effects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lung - radiation effects</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiometry</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1867-1071</issn><issn>1867-108X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFrFTEQxoNUbK3-Ab2UQC-9RGeyIdkcS21VKHhR8LZkN5O-lN3kNdmH-N-b56tFBE8zQ37zZfg-xs4Q3iGAeV8RNSgBiAKgU8K8YCfYayMQ-u9Hz73BY_a61gcArTqlXrFjKbHvemlP2OZDrnGhtcSJT3nZuhJrTjwHvm6Ih0izFzGJ3w1fadqk-Lgj7lKbXLqntEY38x_k78nzkdxSeciFj4VcXXksxfno1pjTG_YyuLnS26d6yr7d3ny9_iTuvnz8fH11Jyal5SrQemug642XFq30stfaKCAiMEpC6AKMoQcJIJWbNI5SBxwnHxoLqFR3yi4PutuS26V1HZZYJ5pnlyjv6tCMsz2g7WxDL_5BH_KupHZdo7A51Wm7p_BATSXXWigM2xIXV342aK9mhkMMQ4th2McwmLZz_qS8Gxfyzxt_fG-APAC1PTUby99f_0_1F93wkbw</recordid><startdate>20120401</startdate><enddate>20120401</enddate><creator>Onal, Cem</creator><creator>Sonmez, Aydan</creator><creator>Arslan, Gungor</creator><creator>Oymak, Ezgi</creator><creator>Kotek, Ayse</creator><creator>Efe, Esma</creator><creator>Sonmez, Serhat</creator><creator>Dolek, Yemliha</creator><general>Springer Japan</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120401</creationdate><title>Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation</title><author>Onal, Cem ; Sonmez, Aydan ; Arslan, Gungor ; Oymak, Ezgi ; Kotek, Ayse ; Efe, Esma ; Sonmez, Serhat ; Dolek, Yemliha</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-19d970387d29192d2866740eee07420f3f0bf8020024ac61b26f1bcdf92d01443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Combined Modality Therapy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart - radiation effects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lung - radiation effects</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiometry</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Onal, Cem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonmez, Aydan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, Gungor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oymak, Ezgi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotek, Ayse</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Efe, Esma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonmez, Serhat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dolek, Yemliha</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Japanese journal of radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Onal, Cem</au><au>Sonmez, Aydan</au><au>Arslan, Gungor</au><au>Oymak, Ezgi</au><au>Kotek, Ayse</au><au>Efe, Esma</au><au>Sonmez, Serhat</au><au>Dolek, Yemliha</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation</atitle><jtitle>Japanese journal of radiology</jtitle><stitle>Jpn J Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Jpn J Radiol</addtitle><date>2012-04-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>218</spage><epage>226</epage><pages>218-226</pages><issn>1867-1071</issn><eissn>1867-108X</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To analyze tangential wedged beam and field-in-field (FIF) technique doses using dose-volume histograms and conformality indices for target volume and healthy tissues within the irradiated volume.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative whole breast radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans were generated: a standard tangential plan with either one outer field wedge or bilateral wedges, and an FIF plan. Three indices were used: the dose homogeneity index (DHI), PTV dose improvement index (PDI
index
) and geometric conformity index (
g
). Also ipsilateral lung, heart and contralateral breast doses were compared for each plan.
Results
Dose homogeneity index was significantly lower for the FIF (0.117 ± 0.021) than for the single wedge (0.131 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.02) and double wedged plan (0.128 ± 0.025,
p
= 0.04), respectively. The
g
was significantly less in the FIF (0.70 ± 0.14) compared to the wedge plans (0.80 ± 0.17,
p
= 0.02 and 0.83 ± 0.16,
p
= 0.003). Contralateral breast doses were significantly lower in the FIF plan. The FIF plan significantly lowered MU compared to both the single wedge and bilateral wedge plans.
Conclusion
The dose distribution within the target was more homogenous, and the doses for healthy tissue were less in the FIF plan compared to the tangential wedge plans.</abstract><cop>Japan</cop><pub>Springer Japan</pub><pmid>22183829</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11604-011-0034-7</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1867-1071 |
| ispartof | Japanese journal of radiology, 2012-04, Vol.30 (3), p.218-226 |
| issn | 1867-1071 1867-108X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1009801939 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy Breast Neoplasms - surgery Combined Modality Therapy Female Heart - radiation effects Humans Imaging Lung - radiation effects Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Nuclear Medicine Original Article Radiology Radiometry Radiotherapy Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Treatment Outcome |
| title | Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T10%3A59%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dosimetric%20comparison%20of%20the%20field-in-field%20technique%20and%20tangential%20wedged%20beams%20for%20breast%20irradiation&rft.jtitle=Japanese%20journal%20of%20radiology&rft.au=Onal,%20Cem&rft.date=2012-04-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=218&rft.epage=226&rft.pages=218-226&rft.issn=1867-1071&rft.eissn=1867-108X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11604-011-0034-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2660319641%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1013443699&rft_id=info:pmid/22183829&rfr_iscdi=true |