Dosimetric comparison of three intensity‐modulated radiation therapies for left breast cancer after breast‐conserving surgery

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate dosimetric differences of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in target and normal tissues after breast‐conserving surgery. METHODS: IMRT five‐field plan I, IMRT six‐field plan II, and field‐in‐field–direct machine parameter optimization–IMRT plan III were designed for each of the 50 patients. One‐way analysis of variance was performed to compare differences, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Homogeneity index of plan III is lower than those of plans I and II. No difference was identified in conformity index of targets. Plan I exhibited difference in mean dose (D (mean)) for the heart (P < 0.05). Plan I featured smaller irradiation dose volumes in V (5), V (20) (P < 0.05) of the left lung than II. Plan I exhibited significantly higher V (5) in the right lung than plans II and III (P < 0.05). Under plan I, irradiation dose at V (5) in the right breast is higher than that in plans II and III. Patients in plan III presented less total monitor unit and total treatment time than those in plans I and II (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: IMRT six‐field plans II, and field‐in‐field–direct machine parameter optimization–IMRT plans III can reduce doses and volumes to the lungs and heart better while maintaining satisfying conformity index and homogeneity index of target. Nevertheless, plan II neglects target movements caused by respiration. In the same manner, plan III can substantially reduce MU and shorten patient treatment time. Therefore, plan III, which considers target movement caused by respiration, is a more practical radiation mode.