Evaluation of Cardiac Substructures Dose Sparing in Single and Dual Isocenter RapidArc™ Radiotherapy Planning for Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer

Purpose This study compares the dosimetry and dose sparing of cardiac substructures in single isocenter and dual isocenter RapidArc™ (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, United States) radiotherapy planning for synchronous bilateral breast cancer. Methodology Six synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) patients received adjuvant radiation with the prescribed dose of 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV) without local lymph nodal regions. PTVs and organs at risk (OARs), including both lungs, esophagus, spinal cord, heart, and left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), both atria and ventricles were contoured. Single isocentric RapidArc (SIRA) and dual isocentric RapidArc (DIRA) plans were made for each patient and dosimetric differences between these two techniques were evaluated. Results There was no statistically significant difference in conformity index (CI) values between SIRA and DIRA plans, with 0.9681±0.01 and 0.9721±0.01 (p=0.505), respectively. SIRA planning showed superior homogeneity with homogeneity Index (HI) values of 0.0999±0.01 compared to DIRA planning with HI values of 0.1640±0.12 (p=0.230). The mean LAD dose of SIRA was valued higher than that of DIRA planning. Lower mean doses were obtained for both lungs in SIRA plans compared to DIRA plans. Meanwhile, doses to the right atrium, left atrium, left ventricle, right ventricle, and esophagus showed no statistical significance between these two techniques, except in the spinal cord. Conclusion Both SIRA and DIRA plans have satisfactory outcomes in sparing OARs. Meanwhile, SIRA techniques have less setup time and overall machine time.

Dosimetric Comparision of Coplanar versus Noncoplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Treatment of Bilateral Breast Cancers

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beams in patients with bilateral breast cancer/s (BBCs) in terms of organ at risk sparing and target volume coverage. The hypothesis was to test whether VMAT with noncoplanar beams can result in lesser dose delivery to critical organs such as heart and lung, which will result in lesser overall toxicity.

Materials and Methods

Data of nine BBC cases treated at our hospital were retrieved. Computed tomography simulation data of these cases was used to generate noncoplanar VMAT plans and the parameters were compared with standard VMAT coplanar plans. Contouring was done using radiation therapy oncology group guidelines. Forty-five Gray in 25 fractions was planned followed by 10 Gy in five fractions boost in breast conservation cases.

Results

No significant difference in planning target volume (PTV) coverage was found for the right breast/chestwall (P = 0.940), left breast/chestwall (P = 0.872), and in the total PTV (P = 0.929). Noncoplanar beams resulted in better cardiac sparing in terms of Dmean heart. The difference in mean dose was >1 Gy (8.80 ± 0.28 - 7.28 ± 0.33, P < 0.001). The Dmean, V20 and V30 values for total lung slightly favor noncoplanar beams, although there was no statistically significant difference. The average monitor units (MUs) were similar for coplanar plans (1515 MU) and noncoplanar plans (1455 MU), but the overall treatment time was higher in noncoplanar plans due to more complex setup and beam arrangement. For noncoplanar VMAT plans, the mean conformity index was slightly better although the homogeneity indices were similar.

Conclusion

VMAT plans with noncoplanar beam arrangements had significant dosimetric advantages in terms of sparing of critical organs, that is Dmean of heart doses with almost equivalent lung doses and equally good target coverage. Larger studies with clinical implications need to be considered to validate this data.

Synchronous bilateral chest wall irradiation with regional nodal irradiation: A literature review of techniques and a case study

The optimal radiotherapy technique for patients requiring both breasts or chest walls simultaneous irradiation with or without regional nodal irradiation is currently under investigation. In the last decade several publications present case reports and case series of patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy in both breasts or chest walls for synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) with modern radiotherapy techniques. This article presents a systematic review of relevant literature as well as a case report of a SBBC patient who received bilateral chest wall radiotherapy with regional nodal irradiation at our institution with Truebeam - Edge Linear Accelerator. Solid evidence is provided that the practice of avoiding adjuvant radiotherapy in SBBC out of fear of toxicity with older radiotherapy techniques is outdated. Modern techniques can safely and effectively deliver treatment to patients requiring both sides irradiation and even in mastectomy patients in need of regional nodal irradiation.

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for adjuvant treatment of bilateral breast cancer

Purpose:

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer (BBC).

Materials and methods:

Ten patients treated on HT were selected retrospectively. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions to breast/chest wall and supraclavicular fossa (SCF) while tumour bed was simultaneously boosted to 61 Gy in 25 fractions. VMAT plans were made with four mono-isocentric partial arcs. The monitoring unit (MU) and treatment time were used to quantify the treatment efficiency. Target volumes were compared for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) while organs at risk (OARs) were compared for relevant dose volumes and integral doses (IDs).

Result:

For targets, no significant difference is observed between VMAT and HT in CI but VMAT could give better HI. The mean lung dose, V20 and V5 is 10·6 Gy versus 8·4 Gy (p-value 0·03), 12% versus 11·5% (p-value 0·5) and 78·1% versus 43·4% (p-value 0·005), respectively. The mean heart dose, V30 and V5 is 4·9 Gy versus 4·7 Gy (p-value 0·88), 0·5% versus 1·5% (p-value 0·18) and 26·2% versus 22·8% (p-value 0·4). Integral dose (ID) for the whole body and heart are comparable: 289 Gy kg versus 299 Gy kg (p-value 0·24) and 2·9 Gy kg versus 2·8 Gy kg (p-value 0·80). ID for lungs was significantly higher with VMAT: 7·9 Gy kg versus 6·3 Gy kg (p-value 0·03). There is a 53% reduction in treatment time and 78% in MU with VMAT against HT.

Conclusion:

VMAT can generate clinically acceptable plans comparable to HT for BBC. HT shows better control over low dose spillage in lungs compared to VMAT thereby increasing ID to lungs. VMAT shows better homogeneity and efficient treatment delivery than HT.

Including internal mammary lymph nodes in radiation therapy for synchronous bilateral breast cancer: an international survey of treatment technique and clinical priorities

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to understand the international standard practice for radiation therapy treatment techniques and clinical priorities for institutions including the internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) in the target volume for patients with synchronous bilateral breast cancer.

METHODS

An international survey was developed to include questions that would provide awareness of favored treatment techniques, treatment planning and delivery resource requirements, and the clinical priorities that may lead to the utilization of preferred treatment techniques.

RESULTS

Of the 135 respondents, 82 indicated that IMLNs are regularly included in the target volume for radiation therapy (IMLN-inclusion) when the patient is otherwise generally indicated for regional nodal irradiation. Of the 82 respondents that regularly include IMLNs, five were removed as those respondents do not treat this population synchronously. Of the 77 respondents, institutional standard of care varied significantly, though VMAT (34%) and combined static photon and electron fields (21%) were the most commonly utilized techniques. Respondents did preferentially select target volume coverage (70%) as the most important clinical priority, followed by normal tissue sparing (25%).

CONCLUSION

The results of the survey indicate that the IMLN-inclusion for radiation therapy has not yet been comprehensively adopted. As well, no consensus on best practice for radiation therapy treatment techniques has been reached.