Cargando…
Dosimetric comparison of normal breathing and deep inspiration breath hold technique for synchronous bilateral breast cancer using 6MV flattened beam and flattening filter free beam
BACKGROUND: The present study was to investigate the usefulness of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) in bilateral breast patients using 6MV flattened beam (FB) and flattening filter free beam (FFFB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty bilateral breast cancer patients were simulated, using left breast p...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Via Medica
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8989442/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402027 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0124 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The present study was to investigate the usefulness of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) in bilateral breast patients using 6MV flattened beam (FB) and flattening filter free beam (FFFB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty bilateral breast cancer patients were simulated, using left breast patients treated with DIBH technique. CT scans were performed in the normal breathing (NB) and DIBH method. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated. RESULTS: In our study the best organ at risk (OAR) sparing is achieved in the 3DCRT DIBH plan with adequate PTV coverage (V(95) ≥ 47.5 Gy) as compared to 6MV FB and FFFB VMAT DIBH plans. The DIBH scan plan reduces the heart mean dose significantly at the rate of 49% in 3DCRT (p = 0.00) and 22% in VMAT (p = 0.010). Similarly, the DIBH scan plan produces lesser common lung mean dose of 18% in 3DCRT (p = 0.011) and 8% in VMAT (0.007) as compared to the NB scan. The conformity index is much better in VMAT FB (1.04 ± 0.04 vs. 1.04 ± 0.05), p =1.00 and VMAT FFFB (1.04 ± 0.05 vs. 1 ± 0.24, p = 0.345) plans as compared to 3DCRT (1.63 ± 0.2 vs. 1.47 ± 0.28, p = 0.002). The homogeneity index of all the plans is less than 0.15. The global dmax is more in VMAT FFFB DIBH plan (113.7%). The maximum MU noted in the NB scan plan (478 vs. 477MU, 1366 vs. 1299 MU and 1853 vs. 1788 MU for 3DCRT, VMAT FB and VMAT FFFB technique as compared to DIBH scan. CONCLUSION: We recommend that the use of DIBH techniques for bilateral breast cancer patients significantly reduces the radiation doses to OARs in both 3DCRT and VMAT plans. |
---|