Cargando…

Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines

This work compares two accelerated partial breast irradiation modalities, MammoSite brachytherapy and three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D‐CRT), to a new method, strut‐adjusted volume implant (SAVI) brachytherapy, following NSABP B‐39 guidelines. A total of 21 patients treated at UC San Dieg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scanderbeg, Daniel, Yashar, Catheryn, White, Greg, Rice, Roger, Pawlicki, Todd
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20160680
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.3021
_version_ 1783284555561566208
author Scanderbeg, Daniel
Yashar, Catheryn
White, Greg
Rice, Roger
Pawlicki, Todd
author_facet Scanderbeg, Daniel
Yashar, Catheryn
White, Greg
Rice, Roger
Pawlicki, Todd
author_sort Scanderbeg, Daniel
collection PubMed
description This work compares two accelerated partial breast irradiation modalities, MammoSite brachytherapy and three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D‐CRT), to a new method, strut‐adjusted volume implant (SAVI) brachytherapy, following NSABP B‐39 guidelines. A total of 21 patients treated at UC San Diego with the SAVI device were evaluated in this comparison. Nine of the 21 patients were eligible for all three modalities and were dosimetrically compared evaluating V90, V150, V200, total target volume, maximum skin, lung, and chestwall/rib dose. The target volumes (PTV_EVAL) differed with SAVI, having the least total volume at 59.9 cc vs. 71.5 cc and 351.6 cc for MammoSite and 3D‐CRT, respectively. The median V90, V150 and V200 for the three modalities were 97.7%, 25.0 cc, 10.4 cc (SAVI) vs. 97.6%, 23.9 cc, 5.0 cc (MammoSite) vs. 100% (V90 3D‐CRT). The maximum dose for SAVI, MammoSite, and 3D‐CRT, respectively, relative to the prescribed dose, for the lung: 80.0%, 150.0%, and 104.9%; for rib: 108.8%, 225.0%, and 114.7%; for skin: 75.0%, 135.0%, and 108.6%. Comparing modalities, PTV coverage varied between 97.6%–100.0% with more breast tissue covered by 3D‐CRT, as expected, given the differences between external beam and brachytherapy. The maximum lung, skin and rib doses were lowest for the SAVI, highlighting its ability to conform to exclude normal tissues. In offering partial breast radiation, the availability of a variety of techniques allows for maximal patient eligibility, and comparison of individual method pros and cons may guide the most appropriate choice for each patient. PACS number: 87.53.Jw; 87.53.Kn; 87.55.D
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5719777
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57197772018-04-02 Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines Scanderbeg, Daniel Yashar, Catheryn White, Greg Rice, Roger Pawlicki, Todd J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Notes This work compares two accelerated partial breast irradiation modalities, MammoSite brachytherapy and three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D‐CRT), to a new method, strut‐adjusted volume implant (SAVI) brachytherapy, following NSABP B‐39 guidelines. A total of 21 patients treated at UC San Diego with the SAVI device were evaluated in this comparison. Nine of the 21 patients were eligible for all three modalities and were dosimetrically compared evaluating V90, V150, V200, total target volume, maximum skin, lung, and chestwall/rib dose. The target volumes (PTV_EVAL) differed with SAVI, having the least total volume at 59.9 cc vs. 71.5 cc and 351.6 cc for MammoSite and 3D‐CRT, respectively. The median V90, V150 and V200 for the three modalities were 97.7%, 25.0 cc, 10.4 cc (SAVI) vs. 97.6%, 23.9 cc, 5.0 cc (MammoSite) vs. 100% (V90 3D‐CRT). The maximum dose for SAVI, MammoSite, and 3D‐CRT, respectively, relative to the prescribed dose, for the lung: 80.0%, 150.0%, and 104.9%; for rib: 108.8%, 225.0%, and 114.7%; for skin: 75.0%, 135.0%, and 108.6%. Comparing modalities, PTV coverage varied between 97.6%–100.0% with more breast tissue covered by 3D‐CRT, as expected, given the differences between external beam and brachytherapy. The maximum lung, skin and rib doses were lowest for the SAVI, highlighting its ability to conform to exclude normal tissues. In offering partial breast radiation, the availability of a variety of techniques allows for maximal patient eligibility, and comparison of individual method pros and cons may guide the most appropriate choice for each patient. PACS number: 87.53.Jw; 87.53.Kn; 87.55.D John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2009-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5719777/ /pubmed/20160680 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.3021 Text en © 2010 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Notes
Scanderbeg, Daniel
Yashar, Catheryn
White, Greg
Rice, Roger
Pawlicki, Todd
Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines
title Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines
title_full Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines
title_fullStr Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines
title_short Evaluation of three APBI techniques under NSABP B‐39 guidelines
title_sort evaluation of three apbi techniques under nsabp b‐39 guidelines
topic Technical Notes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20160680
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.3021
work_keys_str_mv AT scanderbegdaniel evaluationofthreeapbitechniquesundernsabpb39guidelines
AT yasharcatheryn evaluationofthreeapbitechniquesundernsabpb39guidelines
AT whitegreg evaluationofthreeapbitechniquesundernsabpb39guidelines
AT riceroger evaluationofthreeapbitechniquesundernsabpb39guidelines
AT pawlickitodd evaluationofthreeapbitechniquesundernsabpb39guidelines