Search

Introduction: Various techniques for whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) have been reported to increase dose to contralateral tissues. Heart dose is of critical importance as there is no apparent dose threshold below which there is no risk. The aim of this study was to compare planning techniques for WBRT that achieves the best target dosimetry and lowest organ at risk (OAR) dose. Methods: Thirty early‐stage whole breast patient datasets, 15 each left‐ and right‐sided cases, were retrospectively selected. Five techniques were generated for each data set: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (HYI), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) – (HYV), reduced arc VMAT – bowtie (BT), and BT flattening filter free (FFF) – (BTFFF). Plan goals and OARs were evaluated and compared between techniques. Results: BT had the highest median conformity index (CI) values (0.82, IQR: 0.80–0.85 left and 0.83, IQR 0.80–0.86 right). BT recorded lower mean heart doses (median value 1.19Gy, IQR: 0.90–1.55), and BTFFF recorded lower heart V2.5 Gy, V5 Gy; median 3.96% (IQR: 2.90–6.80) and 0.90% (IQR: 0.50–1.50) respectively for left‐sided patients. There was a statistically significant difference in all ipsilateral lung measures, (p < 0.001) with BTFFF producing significantly lower doses across all measures: mean, V5 Gy, V10 Gy and V20 Gy. Conclusion: Overall BT and BTFFF techniques produced lower OAR doses and equivalent PTV coverage for WBRT. BT and BTFFF techniques increased contralateral lung and breast doses; however, these were within prescribed tolerances and comparable to results published in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) has been proven to reduce cardiac dose for women receiving left breast and chest wall radiation therapy. However, it utilises extra departmental resources and patient exertion. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate if any factors existed that could identify breast cancer patients who may benefit most from DIBH, to facilitate appropriate utilisation of departmental resources. Methods: Left‐sided breast cancer patients aged 18–70 years, and right‐sided breast cancer patients with internal mammary nodes included, were recruited. DIBH and free breathing (FB) plans were created for all patients. Patient demographic and clinical history were recorded. Variables including lung threshold value, lung volume, patient separation, maximum heart in field, volume of planning target volume (PTV), heart dose, ipsilateral lung dose were compared between plans. Results: Plans for 31 patients were analysed. No correlations were found between lung threshold value or patient separation and cardiac dose. Moderate to strong correlations were found with BMI, PTV volume and lung volume change however no definitive thresholds were determined. A significant difference was found in the maximum heart in field between DIBH and FB (P < 0.001) with those patients with greater than 0.7 cm heart in the field on the FB scan demonstrating greater reductions in mean heart dose. Conclusion: Maximum heart in the field of greater than 0.7 cm in FB could be a potential factor to identify patients who may benefit most from DIBH. This factor warrants investigation in a larger patient cohort to test its validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]