A dosimetric comparison of MammoSite and ClearPath high-dose-rate breast brachytherapy devices.

PURPOSE: A new form of partial breast irradiation (PBI), ClearPath (CP) breast brachytherapy, has been introduced. We present our results of a dosimetric comparison of MammoSite (MS) and CP PBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The dimensions of the CP device were reconstructed onto the MS planning CT scans for 15 previously treated patients. The mean %V(100), %V(150), %V(200) (percent of the PTV that received 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescription dose, respectively), ipsilateral breast %V(50) (percent of the ipsilateral normal breast that received 50% of the prescription dose), ipsilateral lung %V(30) (percent of the ipsilateral lung that received 30% of the prescription dose), the heart %V(5) (percent of the heart that received 5% of the prescription dose), and the maximum skin point dose per fraction were then determined for each patient using the two methods of balloon-based PBI. RESULTS: The mean %V(100) was 96.5% vs. 96.5%, the mean %V(150) was 42.1% vs. 42.9% (p=ns), and the mean V(200) was 11.4% vs. 15.2% (p<.05) for the MS and CP methods, respectively. The mean ipsilateral breast %V(50) was 19.8% vs.18.0% (p<.05), the mean ipsilateral lung %V(30) was 3.7% vs. 2.8% (p<.05), the mean heart %V(5) was 57.0% vs. 54.3% (p<.05), and the maximum skin point dose per fraction was 312.2 and 273.6cGy (p<.05) for the MS and CP methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MS and CP methods of PBI offer comparable target volume coverage; however, the CP device achieves increased normal tissue sparing.

A dosimetric comparison of MammoSite high-dose-rate brachytherapy and Xoft Axxent electronic brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Over 20,000 patients have been treated with partial breast irradiation (PBI) using the MammoSite balloon brachytherapy applicator (IBB). Recently, a new form of balloon-based PBI, Xoft Axxent electronic brachytherapy (KVB), which uses a 50-kV x-ray source, has been introduced. This analysis was undertaken to dosimetrically compare the results of treatment using these two methods of PBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 15 patients previously treated with IBB. The planning CT scans from these 15 patients were used to construct hypothetical treatment plans using the source characteristics of the KVB device. The plans were then compared using the dosimetric parameters discussed below. RESULTS: The mean %V(90) was 99.6% vs. 99.0% (p=nonsignificant [ns]), the mean %V(100) was 96.5% vs. 96.5%, the mean %V(150) was 41.8% vs. 59.4% (p<0.05), the mean %V(200) was 11.3% vs. 32.0% (p<0.05), and the mean %V(300) was 0.4% vs. 6.7% (p<0.05) for the IBB and KVB methods, respectively. The mean ipsilateral breast %V(50) was 19.8% vs. 13.0% (p<0.05), the mean ipsilateral lung %V(30) was 3.7% vs. 1.1% (p<0.05), and the mean heart %V(5) was 59.2% vs. 9.4% (p<0.05) for the IBB and KVB methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The IBB and KVB methods of PBI offer comparable target volume coverage; however, the KVB method is associated with an increased volume of breast tissue in the high-dose regions and a decreased dose to the adjacent normal tissues.

A dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and MammoSite partial-breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: Limited information is available comparing target volume and normal tissue dosimetry with the different techniques of partial breast irradiation (PBI). We present results of a dosimetric comparison of single catheter, balloon-based brachytherapy using the MammoSite catheter (BRT), 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifteen patients were treated using the BRT device. With the use of CT scans with balloons in inflated and deflated states, plans were developed for each patient using each of the methods of PBI, for a total of 45 plans. The plans were then compared using the below dosimetric parameters. RESULTS: The mean V100 was 95%, 92%, and 94% for the BRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT techniques, respectively. The mean ipsilateral breast V50 was 29%, 56%, and 46% (p < 0.0001) and the mean ipsilateral lung V30 was 5%, 7%, and 2% (p < 0.001 for IMRT vs. others) for the BRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT methods, respectively. For the 10 patients with left-sided breast tumors, the mean heart V5 was 12%, 4%, and 1% for the BRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT methods, respectively (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: With increasing interest in PBI, our data may help clinicians individualize patient treatment decisions.