Cargando…
The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation
INTRODUCTION: Conventionally computed tomography (CT) has been used to delineate target volumes in radiotherapy; however, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being continually integrated into clinical practice; therefore, the investigation into targets derived from MRI is warranted. The purpose of t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168067/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33283982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.453 |
_version_ | 1783701814055534592 |
---|---|
author | Brown, Emily Dundas, Kylie Surjan, Yolanda Miller, Daniela Lim, Karen Boxer, Miriam Ahern, Verity Papadatos, George Batumalai, Vikneswary Harvey, Jennifer Lee, Debra Delaney, Geoff P. Holloway, Lois |
author_facet | Brown, Emily Dundas, Kylie Surjan, Yolanda Miller, Daniela Lim, Karen Boxer, Miriam Ahern, Verity Papadatos, George Batumalai, Vikneswary Harvey, Jennifer Lee, Debra Delaney, Geoff P. Holloway, Lois |
author_sort | Brown, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Conventionally computed tomography (CT) has been used to delineate target volumes in radiotherapy; however, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being continually integrated into clinical practice; therefore, the investigation into targets derived from MRI is warranted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of imaging modality (MRI vs. CT) and patient positioning (supine vs. prone) on planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) for partial breast irradiation (PBI). METHODS: A retrospective data set, of 35 patients, was accessed where each patient had undergone MRI and CT imaging for tangential whole breast radiotherapy in both the supine and prone position. PTVs were defined from seroma cavity (SC) volumes delineated on each respective image, resulting in 4 PTVs per patient. PBI plans were generated with 6MV external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) using the TROG 06.02 protocol guidelines. A prescription of 38.5Gy in 10 fractions was used for all cases. The impact analysis of imaging modality and patient positioning included dose to PTVs, and OARs based on agreed criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted though Mann–Whitey U, Fisher’s exact and chi‐squared testing (P < 0.005). RESULTS: Twenty‐four patients were eligible for imaging analysis. However, positioning analysis could only be investigated on 19 of these data sets. No statistically significant difference was found in OAR doses based on imaging modality. Supine patient position resulted in lower contralateral breast dose (0.10Gy ± 0.35 vs. 0.33Gy ± 0.78, p = 0.011). Prone positioning resulted in a lower dose to ipsilateral lung volumes (10.85Gy ± 11.37 vs. 3.41Gy ± 3.93, P = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PBI plans with PTVs derived from MRI exhibited no clinically significant differences when compared to plans created from CT in relation to plan compliance and OAR dose. Patient position requires careful consideration regardless of imaging modality chosen. Although there was no proven superiority of MRI derived target volumes, it indicates that MRI could be considered for PBI target delineation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8168067 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81680672021-06-05 The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation Brown, Emily Dundas, Kylie Surjan, Yolanda Miller, Daniela Lim, Karen Boxer, Miriam Ahern, Verity Papadatos, George Batumalai, Vikneswary Harvey, Jennifer Lee, Debra Delaney, Geoff P. Holloway, Lois J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Conventionally computed tomography (CT) has been used to delineate target volumes in radiotherapy; however, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being continually integrated into clinical practice; therefore, the investigation into targets derived from MRI is warranted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of imaging modality (MRI vs. CT) and patient positioning (supine vs. prone) on planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) for partial breast irradiation (PBI). METHODS: A retrospective data set, of 35 patients, was accessed where each patient had undergone MRI and CT imaging for tangential whole breast radiotherapy in both the supine and prone position. PTVs were defined from seroma cavity (SC) volumes delineated on each respective image, resulting in 4 PTVs per patient. PBI plans were generated with 6MV external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) using the TROG 06.02 protocol guidelines. A prescription of 38.5Gy in 10 fractions was used for all cases. The impact analysis of imaging modality and patient positioning included dose to PTVs, and OARs based on agreed criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted though Mann–Whitey U, Fisher’s exact and chi‐squared testing (P < 0.005). RESULTS: Twenty‐four patients were eligible for imaging analysis. However, positioning analysis could only be investigated on 19 of these data sets. No statistically significant difference was found in OAR doses based on imaging modality. Supine patient position resulted in lower contralateral breast dose (0.10Gy ± 0.35 vs. 0.33Gy ± 0.78, p = 0.011). Prone positioning resulted in a lower dose to ipsilateral lung volumes (10.85Gy ± 11.37 vs. 3.41Gy ± 3.93, P = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PBI plans with PTVs derived from MRI exhibited no clinically significant differences when compared to plans created from CT in relation to plan compliance and OAR dose. Patient position requires careful consideration regardless of imaging modality chosen. Although there was no proven superiority of MRI derived target volumes, it indicates that MRI could be considered for PBI target delineation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-12-07 2021-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8168067/ /pubmed/33283982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.453 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Brown, Emily Dundas, Kylie Surjan, Yolanda Miller, Daniela Lim, Karen Boxer, Miriam Ahern, Verity Papadatos, George Batumalai, Vikneswary Harvey, Jennifer Lee, Debra Delaney, Geoff P. Holloway, Lois The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
title | The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
title_full | The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
title_fullStr | The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
title_full_unstemmed | The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
title_short | The effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
title_sort | effect of imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging vs. computed tomography) and patient position (supine vs. prone) on target and organ at risk doses in partial breast irradiation |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168067/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33283982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.453 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brownemily theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT dundaskylie theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT surjanyolanda theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT millerdaniela theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT limkaren theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT boxermiriam theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT ahernverity theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT papadatosgeorge theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT batumalaivikneswary theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT harveyjennifer theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT leedebra theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT delaneygeoffp theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT hollowaylois theeffectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT brownemily effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT dundaskylie effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT surjanyolanda effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT millerdaniela effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT limkaren effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT boxermiriam effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT ahernverity effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT papadatosgeorge effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT batumalaivikneswary effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT harveyjennifer effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT leedebra effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT delaneygeoffp effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation AT hollowaylois effectofimagingmodalitymagneticresonanceimagingvscomputedtomographyandpatientpositionsupinevsproneontargetandorganatriskdosesinpartialbreastirradiation |