Dosimetric Comparison of Hypofractionated Regimen in Breast Cancer Using Two Different Techniques: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)

Introduction: Breast cancer treated with adjuvant hypofractionation radiotherapy with two different techniques, i.e., volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and their effects in terms of loco-regional control and adverse effects in terms of cutaneous, pulmonary, and cardiac outcomes are compared. Materials and methods: This is a prospective non-randomized observational study. VMAT and IMRT plan for 30 breast cancer patients who were supposed to receive adjuvant radiotherapy were prepared using a hypofractionation schedule. The plans were dosimetrically evaluated. Objective: Dosimetric comparative analysis of IMRT and VMAT in hypofractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer is done and tested whether VMAT has a dosimetric advantage over IMRT. These patients were recruited for a clinical assessment of toxicities. They were followed up for at least three months. Result: On dosimetric analysis, planning target volume (PTV) coverage (PTV_ (V95)) of both VMAT (96.41 ± 1.31) and IMRT (96.63 ± 1.56) were similar with significantly lower monitor units required with VMAT plans (1,084.36 ± 270.82 vs 1,181.55 ± 244.50, p = 0.043). Clinically, all patients tolerated hypofractionation through VMAT (n = 8) and IMRT (n = 8) satisfactorily in the short term. No cardiotoxicity or appreciable falls in pulmonary function test parameters were observed. Acute radiation dermatitis poses challenges similar to standard fractionation or any other delivery technique. Conclusion: PVT dose, homogeneity, and conformity indices were similar in both VMAT and IMRT groups. In VMAT, there was high-dose sparing of some critical organs like the heart and lungs at the cost of the low-dose baths to these organs. Increased risk of secondary cancer will require a decade-long follow-up study to indict the VMAT technique. As we move toward precision in oncology, “one-size-fits-all” can never be an acceptable dictum. Each patient is unique and therefore we must offer, and the patient must “choose wisely.”