30Apr 2017

A DOSIMETRIC STUDY OF CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY PLAN WITH WEDGE AND FIELD-IN-FIELD-FORWARD-PLANNED RADIOTHERAPY IN LEFT SIDED BREAST CANCER.

  • Clinical oncology department , Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University , Egypt.
  • Medical physicist, Clinical oncology department , Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University , Egypt.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Purpose: To perform a dosimetric comparison of field in field forward planned radiotherapy (FiF-FP) and (3D-CRT) with wedge which are used in whole breast irradiation. Method: In thirty patients, two techniques per patient were done (3D-CRT )with wedge and (FiF-FP).A comparison of treatment plans was done, using dose volume histograms for (PTV) and organs at risk. Volumes: V95, V105, D mean, D max, D min V20, V30 and V5 were chosen for the comparison. Results: The 2 plans, revealed a comparable good dose coverage, V95 >95% of PTV. V105% of doses were observed in less than 10% of the (PTV). D max. > 110% of prescribed doses in FiF-FP and > 110% for 3D-CRT. D mean of PTVs were 101.1% for 3D-CRT versus 100.1% for FiF-FP ,all values were less than the tolerance doses of OARs , the two plans were equivalent in sparing (OARs) , V20 Gy and V30 Gy for heart and ipsilateral lung in the 3D-CRT had an edge over FiF-FP. D max of the heart and ipsilateral lung were higher in 3D-CRT than FiF-FP , D max was lower in 3D-CRT than FiF-FP for contralateral breast. (MUs ) needed to deliver 3D-CRT with wedge plan were more than the values needed to deliver FiF-FP. Conclusion: FiF-FP had better dose homogeneity in (PTV) than (3D-CRT) with wedge and with less dose to OARs. (MUs) were less in (FiF-FP) with less time on the machine and less machine consumption. This technique lead to good expected breast irradiation outcome and encourages breast conservative surgery in developing countries

  1. Morganti AG, Cilla S, Valentini V, Digesu C, et al. Phase I-II studies on accelerated IMRT in breast carcinoma: techni- cal comparison and acute toxic- ity in 332 patients. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(1):86-92. PMID: 19010560 DOI:1016/j.radonc.2008.10.017.
  2. Gray JR, McCormick B, Cox L, Yaha- lom J. Primary breast irradiation in large-breasted or heavy women: anal- ysis of cosmetic outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(2):347-54. PMID:2061111.
  3. Neal AJ, Mayles WP, Yarnold JR. Invited review: tangential breast irradiation--rationa?le and methods for improving dosimetry. Br J Radiol. 1994;67(804):1149-54?. PMID:7874411 DOI:1259/0007-1285-67-804-1149.
  4. Neal AJ, Torr M, Helyer S, Yarnold JR. Correlation of breast dose het- erogeneity with breast size using 3D CT planning and dose-volume histograms. Radiother Oncol.1995;34(3):210-8. PMID:7631027.
  5. Recht, ?Breast Cancer: Stages T1 and T2,? In: L. L. Gunderson and J. E. Tepper, Eds., 2nd Edition, Clinical Radiation Oncology, Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier Pub- lications, 2007, pp. 1475-1495.
  6. Zakiya Salem Al-Rahbi, Ramamoorthy Ravichandran, Johnson Pichy Binukumar, et al: A Dosimetric Comparison of Radiotherapy Techniques in the Treatment of Carcinoma of Breast; Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2013, 4, 10-17.
  7. Yavas, C. Yavas, H. Acar:Dosimetric comparison of whole breast radiotherapy using field in field and conformal radiotherapy techniques in early stage breast cancer; Iran. J. Radiat. Res., 2012; 10(3-4): 131-138.
  8. Ercan T, İgdem S, Alco G, Zengin F, et al: Dosimetric comparison of field in field intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique with conformal radiotherapy techniques in breast cancer. Jpn J Radiol, 2010; 28:283?289. PMID:20512546 DOI:1007/s11604-010-0423-3.
  9. Sasaoka M and Futami T: Dosimetric evaluation of whole breast radiotherapy using field-in-field technique in early-stage breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol, 2011;16:250-256. PMID:21229283 DOI:1007/s10147-010-0175-1.
  10. Romestaing P, Lehingue Y, Carrie C, et al. Role of a 10 Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. J Clin Oncol, 1997; 15: 963?968. PMID: 9060534.
  11. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al.: Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boostEORTC 22881?10882 trial. J Clin Oncol, 2007; 25: 3259?3265. PMID:17577015 DOI:1200/JCO.2007.11.4991.
  12. Prabhakar R, Julka PK, Rath GK Can field-in-field technique replace wedge filter in radiotherapy treatment planning: a comparative analysis in various treatmentsites. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 2008 ; 31: 317-324. PMID:19239058.
  13. Prabhakar R, Julka PK, Malik M, et al :Comparison of contralateral breast dose for various tangential field techniques in clinical radiotherapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2007; 6: 135-8. PMID:17375976.
  14. Stasi M, Moro G, Ramella S, Bertone, A, et al :Factors affecting the contralateral dose for the non-treated breast in irradiation following quadrantectomy. Radiol Med, 1997; 93: 596-9. PMID:9280945.
  15. Zackrisson B, Arevarn M, Karlsson M :Optimized MLCbeam arrangement for tangential breast irradiation. Radiother Oncol, 2000;54:209?12. PMID:10738078.
  16. Richmond ND, Turner RN, Dawes PJDK et al.: Evaluation of the dosimetric consequences of adding a single asymmetric or MLC shaped field to a tangential breast radiotherapy technique. Radiat Oncol, 2003;67: 165? 170.
  17. Donovan EM, Johnson U, Shentall G et al.: Evaluation of compensation in breast radiotherapy: a planning study using multiple static fields. Int J Radiat Biol Phys, 2000;46:671?679 PMID:10701747.
  18. Lee JW, Hong S, Choi KS et al. :Performance evaluation of field-in-field technique for tangential breast irradiation. Jpn J Clin Oncol, ;2008; ; 38:158?163. PMID:18216025 DOI:1093/jjco/hym167.
  19. Bhatnagar AK, Brandner E, Sonnik D et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduced the dose to the contralateral breast when compared to the conventional tangential fields for primary breast irradiation. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2006; 96:41?46.
  20. Woo TC, Pignol JP, Rakovitch E et al. Body irradiation exposure in breast cancer radiotherapy: impact of breast IMRT and virtual wedge compensationtechniques. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2006; 1:52?58. PMID:16457966 DOI:1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.023.
  21. Hong L, Hunt M, Chui C, et al: Intensity-modulated tangential beam irradiation of the intact breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 44:1155?1164. PMID:10421550
  22. Guang-Hua Jin, Li-Xin Chen, Xiao-Wu Deng et al: A comparative dosimetric study for treating left-sided breast cancer for small breast size using five different radiotherapy techniques: conventional tangential field, filed-in-filed,Tangential-IMRT, Multi-beam IMRT and VMAT, Jin et al. Radiation Oncology 2013, 8:89.

[Mohamed abdelgawad, Amira elwan and Emad mostafa. (2017); A DOSIMETRIC STUDY OF CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY PLAN WITH WEDGE AND FIELD-IN-FIELD-FORWARD-PLANNED RADIOTHERAPY IN LEFT SIDED BREAST CANCER. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Apr). 1946-1951] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Mohamed Abdelgawad
Zagazig university

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/4036      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4036

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 34 | No. of Views: 135