Comparison of Dosimetric Parameters and Clinical Outcomes in Inversely Planned Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Field-in-Field Forward Planned IMRT for the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Introduction Radiotherapy has been an important component of the multimodality approach to breast cancer treatment. Newer techniques like three-dimensional radiotherapy had led to better dose distribution over the target volume, with tissue inhomogeneity corrections. To improve the uniformity in dose distribution, a newer technique of intensity modulation was developed, namely, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The present study was designed to compare inverse planned IMRT (IP IMRT) and field-in-field forward planned IMRT (FP IMRT) in patients with breast cancer receiving post-modified radical mastectomy (MRM) adjuvant radiotherapy in terms of dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes. Materials and methods Fifty patients with breast cancer who have undergone MRM and need adjuvant radiotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio into two groups (25 each) of IP IMRT and FP IMRT techniques. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions over five weeks. In IP IMRT, five to seven tangential beams were used for the chest wall, nodal volumes were placed at suitable angles with beam optimization, and calculation was carried out by the analytical anisotropic algorithm. For FP IMRT, two opposing tangential fields were created in such a way to achieve uniform dose distribution to the planning target volume (PTV), minimizing hot spot regions, and limiting dose to the ipsilateral lung and contralateral breast. Multiple subfields were manually designed to boost the area not included in the dose cloud. The dosimetric parameters were compared for PTV, lungs, heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), opposite breast, and esophagus. Results The dosimetric parameters in terms of PTV are better for IP IMRT plans compared to FP IMRT plans (V95%: 92.3% vs 75.2%, p = 0.0001; D90%: 47.4 Gy vs 42.9 Gy, p = 0.0001; D95%: 44.9 Gy vs 37.1, p = 0.0004). The ipsilateral lung (V10Gy: 71.9% vs 41%, p = 0.00001; V20Gy: 42.14% vs 36.35%, p = 0.03; V40Gy: 17.31% vs 26.95%, p = 0.00004; Dmean: 20.91 Gy vs 17.88 Gy, p = 0.01) and contralateral lung (V5Gy: 31.8% vs 0.1%, p < 0.00001; V10Gy: 6.2% vs 0.08%, p = 0.0001) received statistically significant lesser doses in terms of low dose parameters in FP IMRT. In the heart, the dosimetric parameter V5 was significantly lower for FP IMRT (61.7% vs 9.7%, p = 0.00001) along with Dmean (10.92 Gy vs 4.01 Gy, p = 0.001). Similarly, LAD parameters showed comparable high dose volumes (V40Gy: 21.02% vs 16.26%; p = 0.29) in both groups and a trend toward reduction in mean dose (17.1% vs 9.2%; p = 0.05) in FP IMRT group, although low dose volumes were higher in IP IMRT group. In contralateral breast, doses in smaller volumes were better for FP IMRT plans (V0.5Gy: 59.7% vs 43.8%, p = 0.01; V0.6Gy: 54.07% vs 37.6%, p = 0.007; V1Gy: 40.9% vs 22.1%, p = 0.001; V2Gy: 28.7% vs 9.4%, p = 0.00003; V5Gy: 12.07% vs 4.2%, p = 0.0001). In esophagus, statistically significant lower doses were seen only in terms of Dmean (10.29 Gy vs 5.1 Gy; p = 0.03) with FP IMRT. No significant difference in terms of skin reactions and dysphagia was seen in both the groups. Conclusion Both IP IMRT and FP IMRT techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and the superiority of one technique over another cannot be established in this study. The decision for choosing one technique over another can also be based on various patient-related factors weighing the risk of loco-regional recurrences to that of manifesting radiation-induced sequelae.