ABSTRACT
Objective: Radiotherapy continues to play an important role in the management of breast cancer. This study compared the dosimetric differences between the techniques of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy after mastectomy. Materials and Methods: Forty post-mastectomy patients (19 right-sided breast and 21 left-sided breast) treated with the IMRT technique using 7-9 fields who were re-planned with VMAT using 2 coplanar arc on the Varian Vital beam linear accelerator between January, 2020 and August, 2021 were included in this study. The patients received 42 Gy in 15 fractions to the chest wall, lymph nodes and supraclavicular nodes. The dosimetric parameter for planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OAR) and the integral dose to the body were analysed. Student's t-test for two independent means was used to analyse the dosimetric differences between the plans. Results: Clinical goals were achieved for both techniques. In terms of PTV coverage at 95% (IMRT: 712.17±233) vs (VMAT: 694.9±214) and the homogeneity index (IMRT: 0.075±0.04) vs (VMAT: 0.104±0.03), IMRT resulted in better dose coverage and homogeneity than VMAT. However, with the conformity index, no significant difference was seen. As regards the OARs, the mean doses, V5, V10, V20, V30, and V40 for the Ipsilateral-lung were lower in IMRT plans than in VMAT plans with a non-significant variation (p-values = 0.141, 0.416, 0.954, 0.443, and 1 respectively). Regarding the mean dose to the heart, low-dose volumes V5, V10, and high-dose volume V30 were significantly reduced in IMRT compared to VMAT. When comparing the dose to the contralateral breast, IMRT achieved a significantly lower mean dose than VMAT (2.9 vs 3.62, p = 0.0148). For MU, VMAT showed lower MU compared to IMRT with a non-significant difference. Conclusion: With IMRT, better PTV coverage, homogeneity and OAR sparing were observed. Additionally, VMAT resulted in a lower delivery time than IMRT. Overall, both techniques offered dosimetric qualities that were clinically acceptable.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric properties of treatment plans obtained from three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques (IMRT) plans for left chest wall breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with left-sided chest wall radiotherapy were randomly selected with the dose prescriptions: 42 Gy and 45 Gy in 15 and 18 fractions, respectively. Treatment plans were obtained using 3D-CRT and IMRT for each patient. Five to seven beams were used for IMRT, while tangential beams were used for 3D-CRT. Planning target volume, Dnear-max (D2 ), Dnear-min (D98 ), Dmean, Homogeneity and Conformity Indices (HI and CI) were obtained. Similarly, mean doses to organs at risk (OAR), V5, V10, V20, V25 were generated from the dose-volume histogram and compared. RESULTS: IMRT showed a significant improvement in HI compared to 3D-CRT (p<0.0001). Although there was no significant difference in sparing of the left lung between both plans for high-dose volumes (V20: 18.2 vs 30.55, p<0.0001), (V25: 11.17 vs 28.12, p<0.0001). IMRT however showed supremacy to 3D-CRT with high-dose volumes for the heart, including V20 (4.44 vs 10.29, p = 0.02), V25 (2.08 vs 8.94, p = 0.002). 3D-CRT was better than IMRT in low-dose volumes for left lung (V5: 92.23 vs 56.60, p<0.001; V10: 60.98 vs 47.20, p = 0.04) and heart (V5: 57.45 vs 30.39, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: IMRT showed better homogeneity and sparing of high-dose volumes to OAR than 3D-CRT. On the other hand, 3D-CRT showed a reduction of low-dose volumes to OARs than IMRT.
