Setup Error Assessment and Correction in Planar kV Image- Versus Cone Beam CT Image-Guided Radiation Therapy: A Clinical Study of Early Breast Cancer Treated With External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation

Robustness of hypofractionated breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery with free breathing

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the robustness with respect to the positional variations of five planning strategies in free-breathing breast hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for patients after breast-conserving surgery.

Methods

Twenty patients who received breast HFRT with 42.72 Gy in 16 fractions were retrospectively analyzed. Five treatment planning strategies were utilized for each patient, including 1) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning (IMRTpure); 2) IMRT planning with skin flash tool extending and filling the fluence outside the skin by 2 cm (IMRTflash); 3) IMRT planning with planning target volume (PTV) extended outside the skin by 2 cm in the computed tomography dataset (IMRTePTV); 4) hybrid planning, i.e., 2 Gy/fraction three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy combined with 0.67 Gy/fraction IMRT (IMRThybrid); and 5) hybrid planning with skin flash (IMRThybrid-flash). All plans were normalized to 95% PTV receiving 100% of the prescription dose. Six additional plans were created with different isocenter shifts for each plan, which were 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, and 10 mm distally in the X (left-right) and Y (anterior-posterior) directions, namely, (X,Y), to assess their robustness, and the corresponding doses were recalculated. Variation of dosimetric parameters with increasing isocenter shift was evaluated.

Results

All plans were clinically acceptable. In terms of robustness to isocenter shifts, the five planning strategies followed the pattern IMRTePTV, IMRThybrid-flash, IMRTflash, IMRThybrid, and IMRTpure in descending order. V 95% of IMRTePTV maintained at 99.6% ± 0.3% with a (5,5) shift, which further reduced to 98.2% ± 2.0% with a (10,10) shift. IMRThybrid-flash yielded the robustness second to IMRTePTV with less risk from dose hotspots, and the corresponding V 95% maintained >95% up until (5,5).

Conclusion

Considering the dosimetric distribution and robustness in breast radiotherapy, IMRTePTV performed best at maintaining high target coverage with increasing isocenter shift, while IMRThybrid-flash would be adequate with positional uncertainty<5 mm.

Robustness of VMAT to setup errors in postmastectomy radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer: Impact of bolus thickness

BACKGROUND

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with varied bolus thicknesses has been employed in postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) of breast cancer to improve superficial target coverage. However, impact of bolus thickness on plan robustness remains unclear.

METHODS

The study enrolled ten patients with left-sided breast cancer who received radiotherapy using VMAT with 5 mm and 10 mm bolus (VMAT-5B and VMAT-10B). Inter-fractional setup errors were simulated by introducing a 3 mm shift to isocenter of the original plans in the anterior-posterior, left-right, and inferior-superior directions. The plans (perturbed plans) were recalculated without changing other parameters. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were collected for plan evaluation. Absolute dose differences in DVH endpoints for the clinical target volume (CTV), heart, and left lung between the perturbed plans and the original ones were used for robustness analysis.

RESULTS

VMAT-10B showed better target coverage, while VMAT-5B was superior in organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing. As expected, small setup errors of 3 mm could induce dose fluctuations in CTV and OARs. The differences in CTV were small in VMAT-5B, with a maximum difference of -1.05 Gy for the posterior shifts. For VMAT-10B, isocenter shifts in the posterior and right directions significantly decreased CTV coverage. The differences were -1.69 Gy, -1.48 Gy and -1.99 Gy, -1.69 Gy for ΔD95% and ΔD98%, respectively. Regarding the OARs, only isocenter shifts in the posterior, right, and inferior directions increased dose to the left lung and the heart. Differences in VMAT-10B were milder than those in VMAT-5B. Specifically, mean heart dose were increased by 0.42 Gy (range 0.10 ~ 0.95 Gy) and 0.20 Gy (range -0.11 ~ 0.72 Gy), and mean dose for the left lung were increased by 1.02 Gy (range 0.79 ~ 1.18 Gy) and 0.68 Gy (range 0.47 ~ 0.84 Gy) in VMAT-5B and VMAT-10B, respectively. High-dose volumes in the organs were increased by approximate 0 ~ 2 and 1 ~ 3 percentage points, respectively. Nevertheless, most of the dosimetric parameters in the perturbed plans were still clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT-5B appears to be more robust to 3 mm setup errors than VMAT-10B. VMAT-5B also resulted in better OARs sparing with acceptable target coverage and dose homogeneity. Therefore 5 mm bolus is recommended for PMRT of left-sided breast cancer using VMAT.

Factors impacting on patient setup analysis and error management during breast cancer radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is required to deliver an accurate dose to the tumor while protecting surrounding normal tissues. Breast cancer radiotherapy involves a number of factors that can influence patient setup and error management, including the immobilization device used, the verification system and the patient's treatment position. The aim of this review is to compile and discuss the setup errors that occur due to the above-mentioned factors. In view of this, a systematic search of the scientific literature in the Medline/PubMed databases was performed over the 1990-2021 time period, with 93 articles found to be relevant for the study. To be accessible to all, this study not only aims to identify factors impacting on patient setup analysis, but also seeks to evaluate the role of each verification device, board immobilization and position in influencing these errors.

Comparing treatment uncertainty for ultra- vs. standard-hypofractionated breast radiation therapy based on in-vivo dosimetry

Background and purpose

Postoperative ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy (UHFRT) in 5 fractions (fx) for breast cancer patients is as effective and safe as conventionally hypofractionated RT (HFRT) in 15 fx, liberating time for higher-level daily online Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) corrections. In this retrospective study, treatment uncertainties occurring in patients treated with 5fx (5fx-group) were evaluated using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in-vivo dosimetry (EIVD) and compared with the results from patients treated with conventionally HFRT (15fx-group) to validate the new technique and to evaluate if the shorter treatment schedule could have a positive effect on the treatment uncertainties.

Materials and methods

EPID-based integrated transit dose images were acquired for each treatment fraction in the 5fx-group (203 patients) and on the first 3 days of treatment and weekly thereafter in the 15fx-group (203 patients). A total of 1015 EIVD measurements in the 5fx-group and 1144 in the 15fx-group were acquired. Of the latter group, 755 had been treated with online IGRT correction (i.e., Online-IGRT 15fx-group).

Results

In the 15fx-group 12.0% of fractions failed (FFs) compared to 3.8% in the 5fx-group and 6.9% in the online-IGRT 15fx-group. Causes for FFs in the 15fx-group compared with the 5fx-group were patient positioning (7.4% vs. 2.2%), technical issues (3.1% vs. 1.2%) and breast swelling (1.4% vs. 0.5%). In the online-IGRT 15fx-group, 2.5% were attributed to patient positioning, 3.8% to technical issues and 0.5% to breast swelling.

Conclusions

EIVD demonstrated that UHFRT for breast cancer results in less FFs compared to standard HFRT. A large proportion of this decrease could be explained by using daily online IGRT.