A semi-automatic planning technique for whole breast irradiation with tangential IMRT fields.

PURPOSE: To implement a semi-automatic planning technique for whole breast irradiation with two tangential IMRT fields and to test the produced dose distribution against clinical 3DCRT plans, for introducing the technique in clinical practice. METHODS: The Auto-Planning module of the Pinnacle3 (Philips) treatment planning system was used for generating a Treatment Technique on left-sided breast cancer patients treated in free breathing or in deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and to right-sided breast cancer patients. The technique was evaluated against 3DCRT clinical plans in terms of dosimetric plan parameters. Plan robustness toward patient displacements was assessed on a subset of patients by inducing shifts to the isocenter. RESULTS: A statistically significant improvement in target coverage and dose homogeneity was observed for autoIMRT. No statistically significant differences were observed for ipsilateral organs, except for the ipsilateral lung in left DIBH, where slightly lower Dmean and V18% are registered for autoIMRT. Slightly higher Dmean doses (although far below the constraints) to contralateral organs were observed for autoIMRT plans. AutoIMRT plans were shown to be as robust as 3DCRT plans toward isocenter shifts, with a maximum decrease in CTV coverage of -2.2% and -2.1% for autoIMRT and 3DCRT, respectively. Average planning times were 40 min for 3DCRT and 6 min for IMRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: The developed autoIMRT technique was proven to be advantageous for target coverage and homogeneity and sufficiently robust towards isocenter displacements. The use of automated planning consistently reduces the planning workload with improvements in plan quality.

Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for left-sided whole-breast irradiation using automated planning.

BACKGROUND: Published treatment technique comparisons for postoperative left-sided whole breast irradiation (WBI) with deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) are scarce, small, and inconclusive. In this study, fully automated multi-criterial plan optimization, generating a single high-quality, Pareto-optimal plan per patient and treatment technique, was used to compare for a large patient cohort 1) intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with two tangential fields and 2) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with two small tangential subarcs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight randomly selected patients recently treated with DIBH and 16â€¯× 2.66 Gy were included. The optimizer was configured for the clinical planning protocol. Comparisons between IMRT and VMAT included dosimetric plan parameters, estimated excess relative risks (ERR) for toxicities, delivery times, MUs, and deliverability accuracy at a linac. RESULTS: The automatically generated IMRT and VMAT plans applied in this study were similar or higher in quality than the manually generated clinical plans. For equal PTVin V95% (98.4 ± 0.9%), VMAT had significant advantages compared to IMRT regarding breast dose homogeneity and doses in heart and ipsilateral lung, at the cost of some minor deteriorations for contralateral breast (few cases with larger deteriorations) and lung. Conformality improved from 1.38 to 1.18 (p < 0.001). With VMAT, ERR for major coronary events and ipsilateral lung tumors were reduced by 3% (range: -1-12%) and 16% (range: -3-38%), respectively. MUs and delivery times were higher for VMAT. There were no statistical differences in γ passing rates. CONCLUSION: For WBI in conservative therapy of left-sided breast patients treated with DIBH, VMAT with two tangential subarcs was generally dosimetrically superior to IMRT with two tangential static fields. Results need confirmation by robustness analyses.

Addressing the efficiency of X-ray protective eyewear: Proposal for the introduction of a new comprehensive parameter, the Eye Protection Effectiveness (EPE).

Radioprotection of the eye lens of medical staff involved in Surgical procedures is a subject of international debates since ICRP recommended, on 2011, a lower equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye. In this work we address the effectiveness of different models of X-ray protective eyewear by relating actual dosimetry measurements to an ad hoc developed mathematical model, in order to disentangle the contribution of geometrical factors and shield capabilities. Phantom irradiation was carried out in fixed exposure conditions in angiographic room: we found that measured Dose Reduction Factors (DRF) strongly depend on the ergonomics of the investigated eyewear. Actually a very poor DRF was observed in the case of a glass model in spite of its high nominal attenuation, whereas a protective tool with low shielding capabilities such a visor resulted much more effective as a consequence of is shape (i.e. extended geometric protection of the eye lens). Our work highlights the need of the introduction of a specific parameter to quantify the effectiveness of the protection tools and able to predict their DRF by taking into account the geometry of the clinical condition of exposure. Aiming at making steps forward the standardization of the guidelines concerning the features of eye protective tools, we developed a simple mathematical model describing the eye lens irradiation geometry which allows the introduction, for each eyewear, of a comprehensive parameter, the Eye Protection Effectiveness (EPE), that, for any defined clinical irradiation condition and glass shielding capabilities and shape, defines the overall effective X-ray protection of the eyewear.