A Comparative Analysis of Implant-sparing Plan Versus Conventional Plans Utilizing Helical Tomotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To compare implant sparing irradiation with conventional radiotherapy (RT) using helical (H) and TomoDirect (TD) techniques in breast cancer patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dosimetric parameters of 40 patients with retropectoral implants receiving 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions were analyzed. Three plans were created: H plan using conventional planning target volume (PTV) that included the chest wall, skin, and implant; TD plan using conventional PTV; and Hs plan using implant-sparing PTV. The H, TD, and Hs plans were compared for PTV doses, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and treatment times. RESULTS: Dose distribution in the Hs plan was less homogeneous and uniform than that in the H and TD plans. The TD plan had lower lung, heart, contralateral breast, spinal cord, liver, and esophagus doses than the Hs plan. Compared to the Hs plan, the H plan had lower lung volume receiving 5Gy (V5) (39.1±3.9 vs. 41.2±3.9 Gy; p<0.001), higher V20 (12.3±1.3 vs. 11.5±2.6 Gy; p=0.02), and higher V30 (7.5±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.7 Gy; p<0.001). H plan outperformed Hs plan in heart dosimetric parameters except V20. The Hs plan had significantly lower mean implant doses (43.4±2.1 Gy) than the H plan (51.4±0.5 Gy; p<0.001) and the TD plan (51.9±0.6 Gy; p<0.001). Implementing an implant sparing technique for silicone dose reduction decreases lung doses. CONCLUSION: Conventional H and TD plans outperform the implant sparing helical plan dosimetrically. Because capsular contracture during RT is unpredictable, long-term clinical outcomes are required to determine whether silicon should be spared.

The impact of margin reduction on radiation dose distribution of ultra-hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy utilizing a 1.5-T MR-Linac.

BACKGROUND: We examined the effects of reducing the planning target volume (PTV) margin in MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) on the distribution of radiation dose to target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs). Thus, we compared MR-Linac (MRL) plans with and without reduced margin and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan with conventional linac for low-risk prostate cancer patients receiving 36.25 Gy in five fractions of ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty low-risk prostate cancer patients treated with 1.5 T MR-Linac were evaluated. The same planning CT images were used for four plans: the MRL-R plan with reduced margin planning target volume (PTV-R) and the MRL-N plan with normal margin PTV (PTV-N), which is also used for IMRT plan. In four plans, PTV doses, organs-at-risk (OARs) doses, the homogeneity index (HI), and monitor units were compared. RESULTS: All plans met the criteria for PTV coverage and OARs dose constraints. The maximum and mean PTV doses were significantly higher in the MRL-R and MRL-N plans compared to the IMRT plan. The HI was lowest in the IMRT plan (0.040 ± 0.013) and highest in the MRL-N plan (0.055 ± 0.012; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the PTV dosimetric parameters between the MRL-R and the MRL-N plans. The high doses in the rectum was significantly lower in the MRL-R compared to other plans. The bladder V36.25 Gy was significantly lower in the MRL-R plan (2.43 ± 1.87 Gy) compared to MRL-N (4.50 ± 2.42 Gy; p < 0.001), and IMRT plans (4.76 ± 2.77 Gy; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the low-dose volumes of the body, maximum femur doses, or monitor units across each plan. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-hypofractionated MR-guided RT with 1.5 T MRL is dosimetrically feasible for patients with prostate cancer. The improved soft tissue contrast and the online adaptive plan for 1.5 T MR-Linac allows for PTV margin reduction resulted in a significant dose reduction in OARs.

Comparison of helical and TomoDirect techniques with simultaneous integrated boost in early breast cancer patients.

Background: The aim of the study was to perform dosimetric comparisons of helical (H) and TomoDirect (TD) plans for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Materials and methods: Fifty patients, 25 with left-side and 25 with right-side tumors, were determined for a treatment planning system for a total dose of 50.4Gy in 1.8Gy per fraction to WBI, with a SIB of 2.3Gy per fraction delivered to the tumor bed. The planning target volume (PTV) doses and the conformity (CI) and homogeneity indices (HI) for PTVbreast and PTVboost, as well as organ-at-risk (OAR) doses and treatment times, were compared between the H and TD plans. Results: All plans met the PTV coverage criteria for the H plan, except for mean V107 of PTVbreast for TD plan. The H plan yielded better homogeneity and conformity of dose distribution compared to the TD plan. The ipsilateral mean lung doses were not significantly different between the two plans. The TD plans is advantageous for mean doses to the heart, contralateral breast and lung, spinal cord, and esophagus than the H plans. In both the H and TD plans, the right-sided breast patients had lower heart dose parameters than the left-sided breast patients. The TD plan is superior to the H plan in sparing the contralateral breast and lung by decreasing low-dose volumes. Conclusions: While the OAR dose advantages of TD are appealing, shorter treatment times or improved dose homogeneity and conformity for target volume may be advantageous for H plan.

Contralateral breast radiation doses in breast cancer patients treated with helical tomotherapy.

We aimed to evaluate contralateral breast doses calculated with a Treatment Planning System (TPS) and verified with metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) detectors in patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) who received helical tomotherapy (HT) after breast-conserving surgery. The dosimetric data of 30 patients (15 left-sided and 15 right-sided) with BC treated with 50.4 Gy to the whole breast and 64.4 Gy to the tumor bed in 28 fractions were analyzed. TPS doses were calculated and MOSFET doses were measured in the contralateral breast (CB) at cranial, caudal, and midpoint and 2 cm lateral to the central point. TPS and MOSFET doses were compared in the entire cohort as well as by tumor location (inner vs outer quadrant) and planning target volume of the breast (<1200 cc vs ≥1200 cc). The average doses at superior, inferior, central, and lateral points calculated with the TPS were 0.26 ± 0.15 cGy, 0.21 ± 0.09 cGy, 0.65 ± 0.14 cGy, and 0.50 ± 0.11 cGy, respectively, and were 0.37 ± 0.16 cGy, 0.34 ± 0.12 cGy, 0.60 ± 0.18 cGy, and 0.34 ± 0.15 cGy, respectively in MOSFET readings. Except for the central point, TPS-calculated doses and MOSFET readings were differed. The doses to the CB in patients with inner and outer quadrant tumors were not significantly different. In patients with large breasts, MOSFET doses were higher at superior and lateral points than TPS doses, but TPS doses were greater at inferior points. MOSFET readings were higher than TPS calculated doses in patients with inner or outer quadrant tumors in small or large breast volumes. The dose calculated by the TPS and that measured by MOSFET differed by a very small amount. The maximum dose to the CB administered at the midpoint was 1.8 Gy, as calculated using the TPS and confirmed using MOSFET detectors, in patients with early-stage BC undergoing breast-only radiotherapy with HT.

Incidental testicular doses during volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the incidental testicular doses during volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients receiving prostate-only and pelvic lymphatic irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Testicular doses in 40 intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients were determined on treatment planning system (TPS) using the VMAT technique at 6 MV. Scattered testicular doses were also measured by MOSFET detectors placed on testis surface. The testicular doses of patients treated with prostate-only and pelvic field irradiation were compared. RESULTS: The median testicular doses measured per 200 cGy fraction by TPS and MOSFET detectors were 1.7 cGy (0.7-4.1 cGy) and 4.8 cGy (3.6-8.8 cGy), respectively. The TPS doses and MOSFET readings showed a significant strong correlation (Pearson r = 0.848, p < 0.001). The testicular doses measured by TPS (1.34 ± 0.36 cGy vs. 2.60 ± 0.95 cGy; p < 0.001) and MOSFET (4.52 ± 0.64 cGy vs. 6.56 ± 1.23 cGy; p < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients with prostate-only irradiation than in those with pelvic field irradiation. The mean cumulative scattered dose for prostate-only field delivering 78 Gy was 1.8 Gy and that for pelvic field irradiation was 2.6 Gy, consistent with the reported findings. CONCLUSIONS: The patients with prostate-only irradiation received lower testicular doses than those with additional pelvic field irradiation possibly due to the increased scattered doses in large field irradiation using the VMAT technique. The clinical response to increased incidental testicular doses due to pelvic field irradiation remains unknown, and it warrants further investigation.