Automatic treatment planning of VMAT for left-sided breast cancer with lymph nodes

Hybrid planning techniques for early-stage left-sided breast cancer: dose distribution analysis and estimation of projected secondary cancer-relative risk

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate three techniques of irradiation of left-sided breast cancer patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), hybrid Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (h-IMRT), and hybrid Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (h-VMAT, h-ARC), in terms of dose distribution in the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). The second aim was to estimate the projected relative risk of radiation-induced secondary cancers for hybrid techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three treatment plans were prepared in 3D-CRT, h-IMRT, and h-VMAT techniques for each of the 40 patients, who underwent CT simulation in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). For hybrid techniques, plans were created by combining 3D-CRT and dynamic fields with an 80%/20% dose ratio for 3D-CRT and IMRT or VMAT. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were used to compare dose distributions within the PTV and OARs (heart, left anterior descending coronary artery [LAD], left and right lung [LL, RL], right breast [RB]). Projected risk ratios for secondary cancers were estimated relative to 3D-CRT using the organ equivalent dose (OED) concept for the Schneider's linear exponential, plateau, and full mechanistic dose-response model.

RESULTS

All plans fulfilled the PTV criterium: V95%≥95%. Compared to 3D-CRT, both hybrid techniques showed significantly better target coverage (PTV: V95%>98%, p < 0.001), and the best conformality was achieved by h-ARC plans (CI: 1.18 ± 0.09, p < 0.001). Compared to 3D-CRT and h-ARC, h-IMRT increased the average sum of monitor units (MU) over 129.9% (p < 0.001). H-ARC increased the mean dose of contralateral organs and the LL V5Gy parameter (p < 0.001). Both hybrid techniques significantly reduced the Dmax of the heart by 5 Gy. Compared to h-IMRT, h-ARC increased secondary cancer projected relative risk ratios for LL, RL, and RB by 18, 152, and 81%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirmed that both hybrid techniques provide better target quality and OARs sparing than 3D-CRT. Hybrid VMAT delivers less MU compared to hybrid IMRT but may increase the risk of radiation-induced secondary malignancies.

Dosimetric evaluation of the benefit of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) for locoregional irradiation of right breast cancer with volumetric modulated arctherapy (VMAT)

INTRODUCTION

Right-lateralized cardiac substructures can be substantially exposed during right breast cancer (R-BC) radiotherapy. The cardiac benefit of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) is established in combination with volumetric modulated arctherapy (VMAT) for left breast cancer with regional node irradiation but is unknown for R-BC. This study evaluated the dosimetric benefit of DIBH for locoregional irradiation of R-BC with VMAT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients treated for R-BC with adjuvant locoregional DIBH-VMAT in the Department of Radiation Oncology of the Institut Curie (Paris, France) until December 2022 were included, corresponding to 15 patients. FB- and DIBH-VMAT plans were compared both for a normofractionated regimen (50 Gy/25fx) used for treatment and a replanned hypofractionated regimen (40 Gy/15fx). Dose to the heart, cardiac substructures (sinoatrial node (SAN), atrio-ventricular node (AVN), right coronary artery, left anterior descending coronary artery, left ventricle), ipsilateral lung and liver were retrieved and compared.

RESULTS

Mean heart dose (MHD) was 3.33 Gy with FB vs. 3.10 Gy with DIBH on normofractionated plans (p = 0.489), and 2.58 Gy with FB vs. 2.41 Gy with DIBH on hypofractionated plan (p = 0.489). The benefit of DIBH was not significant for any cardiac substructure. The most exposed cardiac substructure were the SAN (mean dose of 6.62 Gy for FB- and 5.64 Gy for DIBH-VMAT on normofractionated plans) and the RCA (mean dose of 4.21 Gy for FB- and 4.06 Gy for DIBH-VMAT on normofractionated plans). The maximum benefit was observed for the RCA with a median individual dose reduction of 0.84 Gy on normofractionated plans (p = 0.599). No significant dosimetric difference were observed for right lung. Liver mean dose was significantly lower with DIBH with median values decreasing from 2.54 Gy to 0.87 Gy (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Adding DIBH to efficient cardiac-sparing radiotherapy techniques, such as VMAT, is not justified in the general case for locoregional R-BC irradiation. Specific R-BC patient subpopulations who could benefit from additional DIBH combination with locoregional VMAT are yet to be identified.

Knowledge-based DVH estimation and optimization for breast VMAT plans with and without avoidance sectors

BACKGROUND

To analyze RapidPlan knowledge-based models for DVH estimation of organs at risk from breast cancer VMAT plans presenting arc sectors en-face to the breast with zero dose rate, feature imposed during the optimization phase (avoidance sectors AS).

METHODS

CT datasets of twenty left breast patients in deep-inspiration breath-hold were selected. Two VMAT plans, PartArc and AvoidArc, were manually generated with double arcs from ~ 300 to ~ 160°, with the second having an AS en-face to the breast to avoid contralateral breast and lung direct irradiation. Two RapidPlan models were generated from the two plan sets. The two models were evaluated in a closed loop to assess the model performance on plans where the AS were selected or not in the optimization.

RESULTS

The PartArc plans model estimated DVHs comparable with the original plans. The AvoidArc plans model estimated a DVH pattern with two steps for the contralateral structures when the plan does not contain the AS selected in the optimization phase. This feature produced mean doses of the contralateral breast, averaged over all patients, of 0.4 ± 0.1 Gy, 0.6 ± 0.2 Gy, and 1.1 ± 0.2 Gy for the AvoidArc plan, AvoidArc model estimation, RapidPlan generated plan, respectively. The same figures for the contralateral lung were 0.3 ± 0.1 Gy, 1.6 ± 0.6 Gy, and 1.2 ± 0.5 Gy. The reason was found in the possible incorrect information extracted from the model training plans due to the lack of knowledge about the AS. Conversely, in the case of plans with AS set in the optimization generated with the same AvoidArc model, the estimated and resulting DVHs were comparable. Whenever the AvoidArc model was used to generate DVH estimation for a plan with AS, while the optimization was made on the plan without the AS, the optimizer evidentiated the limitation of a minimum dose rate of 0.2 MU/°, resulting in an increased dose to the contralateral structures respect to the estimation.

CONCLUSIONS

The RapidPlan models for breast planning with VMAT can properly estimate organ at risk DVH. Attention has to be paid to the plan selection and usage for model training in the presence of avoidance sectors.