Recent Time Trends and Predictors of Heart Dose From Breast Radiation Therapy in a Large Quality Consortium of Radiation Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist regarding the range of heart doses received in routine practice with radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer in the United States today and the potential effect of the continual assessment of the cardiac dose on practice patterns. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2012 to 2015, 4688 patients with breast cancer treated with whole breast RT at 20 sites participating in a state-wide consortium were enrolled into a registry. The importance of limiting the cardiac dose has been emphasized in the consortium since 2012, and the mean heart dose (MHD) has been reported by each institution since 2014. The effects on the MHD were estimated for both conventional and accelerated fractionation using regression models, with technique (intensity modulated RT [IMRT] vs 3-dimensional conformal RT), deep inspiration breath hold use, patient position (supine vs prone), nodal RT (if delivered), and boost (yes vs no) as covariates. RESULTS: For left-sided breast cancer treated with conventional fractionation, the median MHD in 2012 was 2.19 Gy versus 1.65 Gy in 2015 (P<.001). The factors that significantly increased the MHD for conventional fractionation were increased separation relative to 22 cm (1.5%/1 cm), supraclavicular or infraclavicular nodal RT (17.1%), internal mammary nodal RT (40.7%), use of a boost (20.9%), treatment year before 2015 (7.7%), and use of IMRT (20.8%). For left-sided BC treated with accelerated fractionation, the median MHD in 2012 was 1.70 Gy versus 1.22 Gy in 2015 (P<.001). The factors that significantly increased the MHD for accelerated fractionation were separation (1.7%/1 cm), use of a boost (20.0%), year before 2015 (8.5%), and use of IMRT (19.2%). The factors for both conventional fractionation and accelerated fractionation that significantly reduced the MHD were the use of deep inspiration breath hold and prone positioning. CONCLUSIONS: The MHD for left-sided breast cancer decreased during a recent 4-year period, coincident with an increased focus on cardiac sparing in the radiation oncology community in general and a state-wide consortium specifically. These data suggest a positive effect of systematically monitoring the heart dose delivered.

An Active Matrix Flat Panel Dosimeter (AMFPD) for in-phantom dosimetric measurements.

An a-Si Active Matrix Flat Panel Imager (AMFPI) prototype developed in-house has been modified to function as an in-phantom dosimetry system providing high resolution two-dimensional (2-D) data. This Active Matrix Flat Panel Dosimeter (AMFPD) system can be used as a replacement device for standard in-phantom dosimeters, such as scanning ion chambers in water, or film in solid water. The initial characterization of the device demonstrates a wide dynamic range (up to 160 cGy), a stable calibration curve (less than 1.5% variation over 1 year), dose rate independence (less than 1%), and excellent agreement of output factors with ion chamber measurements for a range of field sizes (less than 2%). The device also compares well to film for 2-D planar dose distributions. It is expected that the AMFPD system will be useful for beam commissioning, algorithm verification test data, and routine IMRT quality assurance dosimetry.

Direct dose mapping versus energy/mass transfer mapping for 4D dose accumulation: fundamental differences and dosimetric consequences.

The direct dose mapping (DDM) and energy/mass transfer (EMT) mapping are two essential algorithms for accumulating the dose from different anatomic phases to the reference phase when there is organ motion or tumor/tissue deformation during the delivery of radiation therapy. DDM is based on interpolation of the dose values from one dose grid to another and thus lacks rigor in defining the dose when there are multiple dose values mapped to one dose voxel in the reference phase due to tissue/tumor deformation. On the other hand, EMT counts the total energy and mass transferred to each voxel in the reference phase and calculates the dose by dividing the energy by mass. Therefore it is based on fundamentally sound physics principles. In this study, we implemented the two algorithms and integrated them within the Eclipse treatment planning system. We then compared the clinical dosimetric difference between the two algorithms for ten lung cancer patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery treatment, by accumulating the delivered dose to the end-of-exhale (EE) phase. Specifically, the respiratory period was divided into ten phases and the dose to each phase was calculated and mapped to the EE phase and then accumulated. The displacement vector field generated by Demons-based registration of the source and reference images was used to transfer the dose and energy. The DDM and EMT algorithms produced noticeably different cumulative dose in the regions with sharp mass density variations and/or high dose gradients. For the planning target volume (PTV) and internal target volume (ITV) minimum dose, the difference was up to 11% and 4% respectively. This suggests that DDM might not be adequate for obtaining an accurate dose distribution of the cumulative plan, instead, EMT should be considered.