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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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