Predictors of poor cosmesis in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy boost after breast conservation surgery.

Purpose: To identify patient, tumor, and treatment-related factors, which predict cosmesis in breast cancer survivors treated with adjuvant whole breast irradiation (WBI) plus high-dose-rate (HDR) multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy (MIBT) boost after breast conservation surgery. Material and methods: At least 12 months after completion of radiotherapy, cosmetic outcomes were measured both objectively with BCCT.core software (using a front view digital photograph), and subjectively according to Harvard's criteria. MIBT dose fractionation regimen was 13.6 Gy/4 fractions (bid). To evaluate the correlation between cosmetic scores and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, WBI and MIBT plans were retrospectively analyzed, and ipsilateral skin and breast biologically equivalent dosimetric indices were recorded (α/ß = 3 Gy). A multivariate ordinal logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis. Results: Twenty-eight consecutive patients were enrolled into this study. The median time from completion of radiation therapy to cosmesis scoring was 18 months. In evaluation with BCCT.core software, no patient was scored as excellent. Cosmesis was good in 18%, fair in 50%, and poor in 32% of patients. According to Harvard's scale, 10.5% of patients had excellent cosmesis, and 43%, 28.5%, and 18% of patients had good, fair, and poor scores, respectively. In univariate analysis, patients with higher absolute MIBT V29Gy (cc), those treated with irradiation of regional lymphatics (odds ratio ≈ 5), and patients with larger breast volumes had statistically significant lower Harvard's scores. In the multivariate model, none of the mentioned factors remained statistically significant, except for a trend for poorer cosmesis in patients with higher absolute MIBT V29Gy (p-value = 0.066). Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, MIBT breast V29Gy, regional nodal irradiation, and larger breast volumes are the potential factors, which could predict cosmesis.

Dosimetric analysis of breast cancer tumor bed boost: An interstitial brachytherapy vs. external beam radiation therapy comparison for deeply seated tumors.

PURPOSE: To dosimetrically compare interstitial brachytherapy (MIBT) vs. EBRT (3DCRT and high-energy electron beams) for deep-seated tumor bed boosts (depth ≥4 cm) in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning CTs of fifteen left-side breast cancer patients previously treated with MIBT boost chosen for this study. MIBT, 3DCRT (three-field technique), and enface high-energy electron (15-18 MeV) plans retrospectively generated on these images. To minimize intrapatient target contour inconsistency, due to a technical limitation for transferring identical contours from brachytherapy to EBRT planning system, spherical volumes delineated as hypothetical CTVs (CTV-H) (depth ≥4 cm with considering the geometry of the brachytherapy implant) instead of original lumpectomy cavities (which had irregular contours). In EBRT, PTV-H=CTV-H+5 mm. To account for beam penumbra, additional PTV-H to beam-edge margins added (3DCRT = 5 mm; electron = 10 mm). Included organs at risk (OARs) were ipsilateral breast, skin, ribs, lung, and heart. Prescribed dose-fractionations were 12 Gy/3fractions (MIBT) and 16 Gy/8fractions (EBRT) (BED = 24 Gy, breast cancer Alpha/Beta = 4 Gy). Biologically equivalent DVH parameters for all techniques compared. RESULTS: Mean CTV-H depth was 6 cm. Normal breast V25%-V100%; skin V10%-V90%; rib V25%-V75%; lung V5%-V25%; heart V10%; mean lung dose; ribs/lung Dmax were lower in MIBT vs. 3CDRT. MIBT reduced breast V25%-V125%; skin V25%-V125%; rib V25%-V75% and V100%; lung V25%-V90%; heart V10%-V50%; skin/ribs/lung Dmax compared to electrons. In contrast, breast V125%-V250% and V175%-V250% were increased in MIBT vs. 3DCRT and electron plans, respectively. Electron plans had the minimum mean heart dose. CONCLUSIONS: From a dosimetric point of view, in deeply-seated lumpectomy beds, MIBT boost better protects OARs from exposure to medium and high doses of radiation compared to 3DCRT and high energy electron beams (except more ipsilateral breast hot spots).

An Analytical Method to Calculate Phantom Scatter Factor for Photon Beam Accelerators.

INTRODUCTION: One of the important input factors in the commissioning of the radiotherapy treatment planning systems is the phantom scatter factor (Sp) which requires the same collimator opening for all radiation fields. In this study, we have proposed an analytical method to overcome this issue. METHODS: The measurements were performed using Siemens Primus Plus with photon energy 6 MV for field sizes from 5×5cm2 to 40×40cm2. Phantom scatter factor was measured through the division of total scatter output factors (Scp), and collimator scatter factor (Sc). RESULTS: The mean percent difference between the measured and calculated Sp was 1.00% and -3.11% for 5×5, 40×40 cm2 field size respectively. CONCLUSION: This method is applicable especially for small fields used in IMRT which, measuring collimator scatter factor is not reliable due to the lateral electron disequilibrium.

Analytical Consideration of Surface Dose and Kerma for Megavoltage Photon Beams in Clinical Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: In radiation therapy, estimation of surface doses is clinically important. This study aimed to obtain an analytical relationship to determine the skin surface dose, kerma and the depth of maximum dose, with energies of 6 and 18 megavoltage (MV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To obtain the dose on the surface of skin, using the relationship between dose and kerma and solving differential equations governing the two quantities, a general relationship of dose changes relative to the depth was obtained. By dosimetry all the standard square fields of 5x5cm to 40x40cm, an equation similar to response to differential equations of the dose and kerma were fitted on the measurements for any field size and energy. Applying two conditions: a) equality of the area under dose distribution and kerma changes in versus depth in 6 and 18 MV, b) equality of the kerma and dose at x=dmax and using these results, coefficients of the obtained analytical relationship were determined. By putting the depth of zero in the relation, amount of PDD and kerma on the surface of the skin, could be obtained. RESULTS: Using the MATLAB software, an exponential binomial function with R-Square >0.9953 was determined for any field size and depth in two energy modes 6 and 18MV, the surface PDD and kerma was obtained and both of them increase due to the increase of the field, but they reduce due to increased energy and from the obtained relation, depth of maximum dose can be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Using this analytical formula, one can find the skin surface dose, kerma and thickness of the buildup region.

Determination of an Effective Wedge Angle by Combination of Two Arbitrary Universal Wedge Fields in Radiation Therapy of Cancer Patients with Megavoltage Photon Beams.

BACKGROUND: Wedge filters are commonly used in radiation oncology for eliminating hot spots and creating a uniform dose distribution in optimizing isodose curves in the target volume for clinical aspects. These are some limited standard physical wedges (15°, 30°, 45°, 60°),or creating an arbitrary wedge angle, like motorized wedge or dynamic wedge,... The new formulation is presented by the combination of wedge fields for determining an arbitrary effective wedge angles. The isodose curves also are derived for these wedges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: we performed the dosimetry of Varian Clinac 2100C/D with Scanditronix Wellhofer water blue phantom, CU500E, OmniPro - Accept software and 0.13cc ionization chamber for 6Mv photon beam in depth of 10cm (reference depth) for universal physical wedges (15°, 30°, 45°, and 60°) and reference field 10x10cm2. By combining the isodose curve standard wedge fields with compatible weighting dose for each field, the effective isodose curve is calculated for any wedge angle. RESULTS: The relation between a given effective wedge angle and the weighting of each combining wedge fields was derived. A good agreement was found between the measured and calculated wedge angles and the maximum deviation did not exceed 3°. The difference between the measured and calculated data decreased when the combined wedge angles were closer. The results are in agreement with the motorized single wedge appliance in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: This technique showed that the effective wedge angle that is obtained from this method is adequate for clinical applications and the motorized wedge formalism is a special case of this consideration.