To compare the dosimetry and reproducibility of set-up with monoisocentric technique (MIT) and dual isocentric technique (DIT) in adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT).

Breast cancer patients treated with MIT or DIT were retrospectively studied. The organ-at-risk dose was compared between two groups. All patients underwent set-up verification with an electronic portal imaging device, and set-up time was recorded for each fraction. Treatment reproducibility was assessed in terms of systematic and random error.

Twenty patients were included (11 right and 9 left-sided tumours) and ten received whole breast RT, while the rest received chest wall RT. Overall, the mean heart dose was less with MIT (0.40 versus 0.79, p = <0.001) as well as in left-sided tumours (0.37 versus 0.98, p = 0.003). The maximum dose at the field junction was significantly higher with DIT (43 Gy, 107%, p = 0.003). The maximum total error was 1 cm in lateral for supraclavicular field and 8 mm in superior–inferior in tangents for both techniques. There was no difference in set-up errors between the two techniques.

MIT resulted in better dose homogeneity at the field junctions and reduced mean heart dose as compared to DIT. MIT is safe for implementation in clinical practice for breast cancer treatment.

This study is one of the few studies comparing MIT with DIT in terms of the dosimetry and the first one to compare set-up errors between the two techniques. The ease of set-up and better dosimetry with MIT was achieved.

To study the effect of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) on Fast-Forward trial for left-sided breast radiotherapy dosimetrically using tangential field-in-field (FiF), flattening filtered volumetric-modulated arc therapy (FF-VMAT) and flattening filter free volumetric-modulated arc therapy (FFF-VMAT) in comparison with free breathing (FB).

Computed tomography images were acquired on 15 patients with carcinoma of left breast in FB and DIBH. Planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk were contoured on both image sets. Dose of 26 Gy in five daily fractions was prescribed to PTV. FiF, FF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans were created in treatment planning system on both FB and DIBH. PTV V95%, V107%, D0·1 cc, CI and HI, heart V1·5 Gy, V7 Gy, lung left V8 Gy, monitor units (MU) and beam ON time were used for evaluation. Different technique analysis in same breathing condition and FB versus DIBH for same planning technique were performed.

Mean of all 15 patients was reported as mean ± 1 standard deviation. PTV V95% was 97·55 ± 0·10 (FiF), 95·75 ± 0·66 (FF-VMAT) and 96·15 ± 0·46 (FFF-VMAT) in FB while 97·34 ± 0·50 (FiF), 96·03 ± 0·71 (FF-VMAT) and 95·86 ± 0·63 (FFF-VMAT) in DIBH. Heart V7 Gy was 8·53 ± 4·26 (FiF), 8·86 ± 2·20 (FF-VMAT) and 9·27 ± 2·46 (FFF-VMAT) in FB while 6·30 ± 2·98 (FiF), 5·23 ± 2·20 (FF-VMAT) and 4·68 ± 2·01 (FFF-VMAT) in DIBH. p-value of heart V7 Gy between FB and DIBH was 0·278 (FiF), 0·009 (FF-VMAT) and 0·003 (FFF-VMAT). Beam ON time for FFF-VMAT was reduced by 65% (FF-VMAT) and 11% (FiF).

Conformal dose to PTV was achieved better with VMAT plans. FFF-VMAT was delivered in less time compared to FF-VMAT and FiF for 26 Gy in five fractions. Heart dose can be significantly minimised with DIBH for VMAT plans.

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has gained popularity over recent years due to its impact on shortening the radiotherapy treatment time for early breast cancer. It has certainly proven effective as an exclusive treatment or when combined with whole breast irradiation (WBIR). Seroma is a common non-life-threatening complication that may delay treatment and impose challenges on radiological diagnostic follow-up.

To review and compare the occurrence of seroma in patients who received exclusive IORT or when combined with WBIR and to outline the diagnostic challenges encountered during radiological follow-up.

Based on strict selection criteria, all eligible patients who received IORT ± WBIR treatment between 2012 and 2019 in a university hospital setting were included. Demographic data, histological diagnosis, tumour size, tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion, nodal status, receptor status, treatment with neoadjuvant hormonal chemotherapy, applicator size, dose used, duration of radiotherapy treatment, timing of seroma development and duration of seroma were documented. Both clinical and radiological follow-up were exercised in all patients.

The total number of patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and IORT was 86. Age ranged between 31 and 75 years with the median age of 51 years. Patients treated exclusively with IORT were 39 (45%) while those who received the IORT as a boost were 47 (55%). Seroma was observed in 39(45%) of both IORT and IORT\WBIR patients. Those included 15(38%) of the exclusive IORT treated patients and 24 (62%) of those treated as a boost. Duration of asymptomatic seroma ranged from 6 months to 6 years. Repeated aspiration was performed in 2 (5%) patients. Postoperative seroma occurred independent of age histological diagnosis, tumour size, tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion, nodal status, receptor status, treatment with neoadjuvant hormonal\chemotherapy, applicator size, dose used or duration of radiotherapy treatment. All reviewed patients have shown increased risk of developing seroma; however, an increased incidence of seroma in the IORT + WBIR treated patients was higher than those who received exclusive IORT treatment.

Postoperative seroma is a common non-life-threatening entity that occasionally may lead to delay in the subsequent treatment plan. IORT is a safe modality with many benefits; however, it may increase the risk of seroma formation independent of the clinical parameters. Promoting the expertise in post IORT breast imaging aids in overcoming diagnostic challenges.

To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of arm lymphedema in patients with breast cancer.

Between 2006 and 2017, we investigated patients with breast cancer after breast surgery who received adjuvant radiotherapy at the breast or chest wall, and/or adjuvant radiotherapy at regional lymph nodes, and standard systemic chemotherapy depending on disease stage and risk factors. We assessed arm lymphedema using arm circumference measurement differences on the treated side compared with the opposite arm (≥2 cm measurements at any one position). Associations between arm lymphedema and potential risk factors were identified using statistical analysis.

In 308 patients, arm lymphedema prevalence was 6·2%. Patients having ≥20 lymph nodes removed (hazard ratio (HR) = 3·29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1·12–8·87), undergoing regional lymph node irradiation (HR = 1·81; 95% CI: 1·09–13·28), and no arm and shoulder exercises after treatment (HR = 3·16; 95% CI: 1·89–5·26) had a higher risk of arm lymphedema.

Arm lymphedema is a serious breast cancer complication and is a preventable morbidity. Planning arm and shoulder exercises in line with adjuvant treatments and increasing clinical awareness of early indications could help lower the risk of occurrence.

There are only limited studies available in literature that discuss methods to reduce the oesophageal dose and acute oesophagitis during breast cancer radiotherapy. The aim of this study is to compare dose volumetric parameters of oesophagus in radiation treatment of breast with and without oesophagus delineation.

Treatment plans of 44 patients, who underwent chest wall and supraclavicular fossa irradiation, were selected for the study. Oesophagus was later delineated and treatment replanned using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) considering oesophagus as an organ at risk (OAR). The dose prescribed was 40 Gy/15 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Dose volumetric parameters of oesophagus such as maximum dose (Dmax), mean dose (Dmean), the percentage of oesophagus volume receiving ≥15Gy (V15), ≥25Gy(V25), ≥33Gy(V33) and ipsilateral lung volume parameters V4, V8 and V16 were compared with already executed plans in which oesophagus was not delineated.

Contouring the oesophagus as an OAR as a part of the radiotherapy treatment for Carcinoma Breast resulted in statistically significant reduction in dose to the oesophagus. No statistically significant change was found in the ipsilateral lung volume parameters. No compromise in plan quality was required as evident from the statistically non-significant differences in Homogeneity index and Conformity index.

3DCRT planning with oesophagus delineation can be considered as a method to reduce oesophageal dose and the acute oesophageal toxicity during radiotherapy for carcinoma breast.

Accurate and reproducible patient positioning is a critical step in radiotherapy for breast cancer. This has seen the use of permanent skin markings becoming standard practice in many centres. Permanent skin markings may have a negative impact on long-term cosmetic outcome, which may in turn, have psychological implications in terms of body image. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a semi-permanent tattooing device for the administration of skin marks for breast radiotherapy set-up.

This was designed as a phase II double-blinded randomised-controlled study comparing our standard permanent tattoos with the Precision Plus Micropigmentation (PPMS) device method. Patients referred for radical breast radiotherapy were eligible for the study. Each study participant had three marks applied using a randomised combination of the standard permanent and PPMS methods and was blinded to the type of each mark. Follow up was at routine appointments until 24 months post radiotherapy. Participants and a blind assessor were invited to score the visibility of each tattoo at each follow-up using a Visual Analogue Scale. Tattoo scores at each time point and change in tattoo scores at 24 months were analysed by a general linear model using the patient as a fixed effect and the type of tattoo (standard or research) as covariate. A simple questionnaire was used to assess radiographer feedback on using the PPMS.

In total, 60 patients were recruited to the study, of which 55 were available for follow-up at 24 months. Semi-permanent tattoos were more visible at 24 months than the permanent tattoos. Semi-permanent tattoos demonstrated a greater degree of fade than the permanent tattoos at 24 months (final time point) post completion of radiotherapy. This was not statistically significant, although it was more apparent for the patient scores (p=0·071) than the blind assessor scores (p=0·27). No semi-permanent tattoos required re-marking before the end of radiotherapy and no adverse skin reactions were observed.

The PPMS presents a safe and feasible alternative to our permanent tattooing method. An extended period of follow-up is required to fully assess the extent of semi-permanent tattoo fade.

Few studies claimed that dynamic jaw (DJ) mode in Helical TomoTherapy® (HT) could improve the cranio-caudal dose distribution without prolonging the treatment time in treating different types of cancer. Also, studies suggested that DJ with a wider 5 cm field width (FW) could replace fixed jaws (FJ) with 2.5 cm FW to reduce the delivery time with the sustainable plan quality. Yet, the study on breast cancer with supraclavicular fossa (SCF) nodal involvement using DJ mode in HT is limited. This study aims to evaluate the DJ mode retrospectively by comparing their dosimetric quality with normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk and treatment delivery time with FJ mode on treating left-side breast with SCF nodal involvement.

All post-mastectomy patients, who had been irradiated for left-side breast with SCF nodal involvement were selected retrospectively in this study. With the same dose constraint and prescription as the treated DJ2.5 plan, two extra plans using DJ mode with 5 cm FW(DJ5.0) and FJ mode with 2.5 cm FW (FJ2.5) were computed for plan comparison.

No statistical significance was found in all the parameters of PTV and OARs, except for V20 of whole lung. DJ5.0 received V20 in ipsilateral left lung than FJ2.5 and DJ2.5. However, the average delivery time of DJ5.0 was significantly lower than that of DJ2.5 and FJ2.5 by almost 40%.

No statistical significance was found in those dosimetric and radiobiological parameters among three modes while the delivery time has greatly reduced by using DJ5.0. A shorter treatment time can minimise intra-fractional error and better the patient’s experience during treatment.

This study compares three different hybrid plans, for left-sided chest wall (CW) and nodal stations irradiation using a hypofractionated dose regimen.

Planning target volumes (PTVs) of 25 breast cancer patients that included CW, supraclavicular (SCL) and internal mammary node (IMN) were planned with 3 different hybrid techniques: 3DCRT+IMRT, 3DCRT+VMAT and IMRT+VMAT. All hybrid plans were generated with a hypofractionated dose prescription of 40·5 Gy in 15 fractions. Seventy per cent of the dose was planned with the base-dose component and remaining 30% of the dose was planned with the hybrid component. All plans were evaluated based on the PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric parameters.

The results for PTVs parameters have shown that the 3DCRT+IMRT and 3DCRT+VMAT plans were superior in uniformity index to the IMRT+VMAT plan. The OARs dose parameters were comparable between hybrid plans. The IMRT+VMAT plan provided a larger low dose volume spread to the heart and ipsilateral lung (p < 0·001). The 3DCRT+VMAT plan required less monitor units and treatment time (p = 0·005) than other plans.

The 3DCRT+VMAT hybrid plan showed superior results with efficient treatment delivery and provide clinical benefit by reducing both low and high dose levels.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and sensitivity of the Varian portal dosimetry (PD) system as a quality assurance (QA) tool for breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans.

Four hundred portal dose images from 200 breast cancer patient IMRT treatment plans were analysed. The images were obtained using Varian PortalVision electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) on Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Three patient plans were selected, and the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions were randomly altered by a mean of 0·5, 1, 1·5 and 2 mm with a standard deviation of 0·1 mm on 50, 75 and 100% of control points. Using the improved/global gamma calculation algorithm with a low-dose threshold of 10% in the EPID, the change in gamma passing rates for 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criterion was analysed as a function of the introduced error. The changes in the dose distributions of clinical target volume and organ at risk due to MLC positioning errors were also analysed.

Symmetric and asymmetric breast or chest wall plan fields are different in delivery as well as in the QA. An average gamma passing rate of 99·8 ± 0·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm symmetric plans and 96·9 ± 4·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm asymmetric plans. An average gamma passing rate of 98·4 ± 4·3 is presented for 2%/2 mm symmetric plans and 89·7 ± 9·5 is presented for 2%/2 mm asymmetric plans. A large-induced error in MLC positioning (2·0 mm, 100% of control points) results in an insignificant change in dose that would be delivered to the patient. However, EPID portal dosimetry is sensitive enough to detect even the slightest change in MLC positioning error (0·5 mm, 50% of control points).

Stricter pre-treatment QA action levels can be established for breast IMRT plans utilising EPID. For improved sensitivity, a multigamma criteria approach is recommended. The PD tool is sensitive enough to detect MLC positioning errors that contribute to even insignificant dose changes.

To evaluate efficacy of helical tomotherapy (HT) for treatment of breast cancer with internal mammary lymph node involvement.

This is a retrospective clinical audit of planning, dosimetry, toxicity and short-term survival of a cohort of 65 patients. Patients were treated between November 2014 and May 2019. The primary and nodal region was prescribed a dose of 50 Gray (Gy) in 25 fractions, while all cases of breast conserving surgery received a simultaneous integrated boost to a dose of 61 Gy in 25 fractions.

The 95% coverage for the primary, supraclavicular, internal mammary node and tumour bed was 93·4%, 96·8%, 90·7% and 98·3%, respectively. Mean dose to total lung, heart and contra-lateral breast was 10·6 Gy, 6·92 Gy and 4·32 Gy, respectively. None developed grade III skin or oesophageal toxicity. Twenty-one patients had progression; of which eighteen developed only distant failure while three also had loco-regional recurrence. At a median follow-up of 36 months, the 3-year loco-regional control, disease-free survival and overall survival were 93·5, 73·9 and 85·9%, respectively.

We report encouraging clinical outcome for patients treated uniformly with HT. The predominant pattern of failure was distant metastases which suggests the need for systemic control intensification.

During the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust Oncology Department incorporated the ultrahypofractionated regime of 26Gy/5 fractions alongside the moderate hypofractionated regime of 40Gy/15 fractions as part of local adjuvant breast radiotherapy treatment (RT) for eligible patients. We conducted a local study to assess the real-life experience of patients undergoing ultrahypofractionated schedule to compare feasibility and toxicity to the fast-forward trial during the COVID − 19 pandemic.

A single institution, retrospective, qualitative study. Patients included had early-stage breast cancer and received adjuvant radiotherapy between 23 March 2020 and 31 May 2020, a total of 211 patients. Inclusion was irrespective of any other neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatments. Data were collected retrospectively for treatment dose, boost dose and toxicity.

Of the total 211 patients, 85 were treated with 26Gy in 5# and 19 patients received a boost as per the fast-forward protocol. Of these 85 patients, 15·9% did not report any skin toxicity post-treatment. 63·5% of patients reported RTOG Grade 1, 15·9% had RTOG Grade 2, and 1·6% reported RTOG Grade 3 skin toxicity. 3·2% of the patients could not be contacted for follow-up. Of the 19 patients who received a breast boost, 10·53% reported no skin changes. 78·9% reported Grade 1 skin toxicity. Both Grades 2a and 2b skin toxicity were reported by 5·26% each. The patient demographics and tumour characteristics in our study cohort were comparable to those within the fast-forward trial. In terms of post-RT skin toxicity, fewer patients reported any toxicity in the UHB patient cohort versus those in the trial, and the number of Grade 2/3 toxicities reported was also low. A delay in toxicity reporting from 2 weeks for 40Gy/15 to 3 weeks for 26Gy/5 was observed.

Our study concluded that offering ultrahypofractionation was convenient for patients; reducing the number of hospital visits during the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic appeared safe in terms of acute post-RT-related skin toxicity. The reduced hospital visits limited exposure of patients and staff to the SARS-CoV-2 virus while also ensuring efficient use of Radiotherapy Department resources. Local follow-up protocols have been amended to ensure review at 3 weeks for the 26Gy/5 schedule to acknowledge the delay in acute toxicity development. To date, there is only 5-year toxicity and relapse data available from the fast-forward trial; therefore, hypofractionation schedules should be offered to patients as long as they fulfil the criteria and understand the limitations of the study as well as accelerated peer review processes in the face of the pandemic.

Although hypofractionated radiotherapy has been standardised in early breast cancer, even in post-mastectomy no such consensus has been developed for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), probably due to complex planning and field matching. This study is directed towards dosimetric evaluation and comparison of toxicity, response and disease-free survival (DFS) comparison between hypofractionation and conventional radiotherapy in post-mastectomy LABC.

In total, 222 female breast cancer patients were randomly assigned to be treated with either hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 120) delivering 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks or conventional radiotherapy (n = 102) with 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks after modified radical mastectomy (MRM) along with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. All patients were planned with treatment planning software and assessed regularly during and after treatment.

Median follow-up period was 178 weeks in conventional arm (CRA) and 182 weeks in hypofractionation arm (HFA). There exists a dosimetric difference between the two arms of treatment, in spite of similar dose coverage [planning treatment volume (PTV) D90 92·04% in CRA versus 92·5% in HFA; p = 0·49], average dose in HFA is less than that of CRA (p < 0·001); so is the maximum clinical target volume (CTV) dose (p < 0·001). Similarly, average lung dose in HFA arm is significantly lower than CRA (9·9 versus 10·84; p = 0·06), but the V20Gy of lung and V30Gy of heart had no difference. The toxicity of radiation was comparable with similar mean time to produce toxicity [CRA: 7 W, HFA: 10 W; hazard ratio 0·64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0·28–1·45]. Three-year recurrence event was alike in two arms (CRA: 4·9%, HFA: 5·8%; p = 0·76). Mean DFS in CRA is 230 weeks and that of HFA is 235 weeks with hazard ratio 1·01 (95% CI = 0·32–3·19; p = 0·987).

Though biologically effective dose (BED) in hypofractionation is lesser than that of conventional fractionation, there are indistinguishable toxicity, locoregional recurrence, distant failure rate and DFS between the two modalities.

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer (BBC).

Ten patients treated on HT were selected retrospectively. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions to breast/chest wall and supraclavicular fossa (SCF) while tumour bed was simultaneously boosted to 61 Gy in 25 fractions. VMAT plans were made with four mono-isocentric partial arcs. The monitoring unit (MU) and treatment time were used to quantify the treatment efficiency. Target volumes were compared for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) while organs at risk (OARs) were compared for relevant dose volumes and integral doses (IDs).

For targets, no significant difference is observed between VMAT and HT in CI but VMAT could give better HI. The mean lung dose, V20 and V5 is 10·6 Gy versus 8·4 Gy (p-value 0·03), 12% versus 11·5% (p-value 0·5) and 78·1% versus 43·4% (p-value 0·005), respectively. The mean heart dose, V30 and V5 is 4·9 Gy versus 4·7 Gy (p-value 0·88), 0·5% versus 1·5% (p-value 0·18) and 26·2% versus 22·8% (p-value 0·4). Integral dose (ID) for the whole body and heart are comparable: 289 Gy kg versus 299 Gy kg (p-value 0·24) and 2·9 Gy kg versus 2·8 Gy kg (p-value 0·80). ID for lungs was significantly higher with VMAT: 7·9 Gy kg versus 6·3 Gy kg (p-value 0·03). There is a 53% reduction in treatment time and 78% in MU with VMAT against HT.

VMAT can generate clinically acceptable plans comparable to HT for BBC. HT shows better control over low dose spillage in lungs compared to VMAT thereby increasing ID to lungs. VMAT shows better homogeneity and efficient treatment delivery than HT.

In this study, the differences between calculated and measured dose values were then analysed to assess the performance, in terms of accuracy, of the tested treatment planning system (TPS) algorithms applied to calculate electron beam dose targeted and non-targeted the breast region.

The beryllium oxide (BeO) dosimeters placed on the female RANDO phantom were irradiated 12 MeV electron energy with medical linear accelerator and repeatedly read in the Risø thermoluminescence (TL)/optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) system via OSL method at least three times.

For electron treatment, one made quantitative comparisons of the dose distributions calculated by TPSs with those from the measurements by OSL at various points in the RANDO phantom.

The mean dose measured from the dosimeters placed on the female RANDO phantom target left breast region was 160 cGy and non-target right breast region was 1·2 cGy. Analysis of Generalised Gaussian Pencil Beam (GGPB) and Electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithms for determined region mean point dose values, respectively, 174 and 164 cGy. Two algorithms for non-targeted region calculated same point dose values of 0·2 cGy.

The results of this study showed that BeO dosimeters can be used with OSL method in radiotherapy applications and it is a very important tool for the determination of targeted/non-targeted absorbed dose.

The aim of this study is to compare patient geometrical uncertainties in the treatment of breast boost three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) considering both manual alignment and automatic different registration methods in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

A total of 85 patients were chosen for this study. A total of 254 registrations of CBCT vs planning computed tomography (CT) were retrospectively performed using automatic registration algorithms from Elekta XVI system (Clipbox and Mask) to detect patient setup uncertainties. All CBCTs were also matched manually by three health professionals. Mean shift values obtained with manual registration performed by health professionals were used as reference. Absolute value of difference between automatic algorithm shifts and reference values shifts was collected for each enrolled patient considering the three different spatial directions (x,y,z), and the magnitude was calculated (δm for Mask and δc for Clipbox).

Data analysis showed a significant difference in δm and δc. t-Test statistics showed a high difference between Mask and Clipbox, in particular mean δm = (1.3 ± 0.1) mm and δc = (3.3 ± 1.2) mm (p-value <0.0001). Mask algorithm was performed in a very similar way with respect to the reference alignment, and the differences between these two procedures were of the order of 1 mm. Clipbox algorithm showed larger differences with manual registration.

These results suggest that the Mask algorithm may be the optimal choice for patient setup verification in clinical practice for breast boost treatment in 3D-CRT.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of changes in breathing pattern inside the breath-hold window (BHW) during deep inspiration breath hold treatment for carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery.

Ten patients of carcinoma left breast post-conservative surgery were prospectively selected. Three sets of CT plain images were acquired, one with 5 mm deep inspiration BHW (DIBHR) and the other one with 1 mm BHW matching the lower threshold (DIBHL) and the third one with 1 mm BHW matching the upper threshold (DIBHH) as DIBHR. For all patients, forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated in the 5 mm BHW CT series and the same plan being copy and pasted in other series. Target volume doses and critical structure doses were tabulated.

Planning target volume coverage was adequate and no significant differences were found in any CT series. Significant differences noted in average left lung V5%, V10% and V18% doses between DIBHR versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0461, 0·0283 and 0·0213, respectively) and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0434, 0·0484 and 0·0334, respectively) for FIMRT plans and V18% doses in DIBHR versus DIBHH (p = 0·0067) in VMAT. No differences in heart and apex of heart doses were found. Left anterior descending artery (LAD) mean doses were significant in DIBHL versus DIBHR, DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0012, 0·0444 and 0·0048, respectively) series for FIMRT plans and DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0341, 0·0001) for VMAT plans.

The changes in the breathing pattern inside DIBH window level cause some variation in LAD doses and no other significant differences in any parameters noted, so care should be taken while treating patients with preexisting cardiac conditions.

To investigate the modalities of tumour bed (TB) localisation of target volume delineation [clinically computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US) compared with surgical clips-guided] and the impact of their differences in delineated TB volumes.

In total, 27 patients who underwent oncoplastic breast conservative surgery with surgical clips insertion (at least three) were included. CT and US imaging for TB localisation were done 3–4 weeks post-operatively in the same treatment position. TB was delineated four times, guided by surgical clips, clinical data, CT (seroma) and US. A plan was done for each TB delineated. The four delineated volumes were compared regarding the volumetric differences, the geographical miss index (GMI) and the overlap index.

Comparing the four modalities, median TB volume was for clinical (60.7), CT (60.8) and US (49.3) cm3, in comparison with 59.7 cm3 for clips, p=0.05. Median of GMI (represented the tissue at risk of recurrence and not had been treated) was for clinical (61.8), CT (45) and US (62.4)%, with significant difference of p=0.02. Median of normal tissue index (normal tissue has been included unnecessarily) was for clinical (59.5), CT (49.6) and US (62.3)%, p=0.17. Overlap index with clips-guided was for clinical (0.36), CT (0.42) and US (0.35) with significance of p=0.04. Median superior/inferior direction was 0.72, −0.03 and −0.2 cm for clinical, CT and US, respectively, with significant value of p=0.02, whereas the anterior–posterior was −0.07, −0.15 and −0.09 cm, p-value=0.45 and the medio–lateral was 0.4, −0.13 and 0.09 cm, p=0.60.

Significant differences in shifts and indices were detected between each of modalities compared with surgical clips. Thus, in the setting of oncoplastic breast surgery, surgical clips should be routinely used for TB localisation. In view of the larger volumes of breast tissue excised and the extensive remodelling that are inherent to oncoplastic procedures, the concept of TB boost irradiation should be re-challenged.

To evaluate clinically pertinent skin dose and volume parameters for the development of toxicities following accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI).

Three skin structures of various thicknesses inside the body (2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm) were contoured over the treated breast retrospectively in a cohort of 62 women who underwent APBI using multi-catheter interstitial brachytherapy. The correlation statistics between the various skin structures and acute and late skin sequelae were evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis. A p-value of <0·05 was considered significant.

At a median follow-up period of 54 months (range: 28–86), a significant correlation was seen between dose received by 0·2 (D0·2) cc of skin 4 mm inside the body as well as volume receiving 100% dose (V100) of skin 3 mm inside the body with cosmesis at 2 years and at last follow-up. The threshold for the two parameters for prediction of excellent or good cosmesis was 90% of the prescribed dose and 0·05 cc, respectively. No significant dosimetric or volumetric correlation was seen with other sequelae like wound dehiscence, fat necrosis, telangiectasia and atrophy.

The results of this study support the use of dose and volumetric indices of the sub-volumes of the skin for correlation with clinical endpoints. However, the same should be validated prospectively in a larger cohort of women undergoing breast brachytherapy.

Whole-breast external beam radiotherapy results in significant reduction in the risk for breast cancer-related death, but this may be offset by an increase in deaths from other causes and toxicity to surrounding organs. Partial breast irradiation techniques are approaches that treat only the lumpectomy area rather than the whole breast. Quality assurance in the radiation therapy treatment planning process is essential to ensure accurate dose delivery to the patient. For this purpose, this article compares the results from an anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter, radiation treatment planning system and from the GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film.

A breast dosimeter was created and a three-field partial plan was generated in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. Dose distribution comparisons were made between Pinnacle3 treatment planning system, GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film and PRESAGE® dosimeter. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs), gamma maps and line profiles were used to evaluate the comparison.

DVHs of gross tumour volume, clinical tumour volume and planning tumour volume for the PRESAGE® dosimeter and Pinnacle3 treatment planning system shows that both measured and calculated statistics were in agreement, with a value of 97.8% of the prescribed dose. Gamma map comparisons showed that all three distributions passed 95% at the ±3%/±3 mm criteria. Comparisons of isodose line distribution between the PRESAGE® dosimeter, EBT2 film and planning system demonstrated agreement, with an average difference of 1.5%.

This work demonstrated the feasibility of PRESAGE® to function as an anthropomorphic phantom and laid the foundation for research studies in PRESAGE®/optical-computed tomography three-dimensional dosimetry with the most complex anthropomorphic phantoms.

Breast intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is a partial irradiation technique that delivers a single fraction of radiation dose to the tumour bed during surgery. The use of this technique is increasing (especially in the Middle East), and therefore, it is essential to have a comprehensive approach to this treatment modality. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review on available IORT modalities during breast irradiation as well as dedicated IORT machines and associated treatment procedures. The main IORT trials and corresponding clinical outcomes are also studied.

A computerised search was performed through MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, ISI web of knowledge and reference list of related articles.

IORT is now feasible through using two main modalities, including low-kilovolt IORT and intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT). The dedicated machines employed and treatment procedure for mentioned modalities are quite different. The outcomes of implemented clinical trials showed that IORT is not inferior to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in specifically selected and well-informed patients and can be considered as an alternative to EBRT.

Although the clinical outcomes of introduced IORT methods are comparable, but based on the review results, it could be said that IOERT is the most effective technical method, in view of the treatment time and dose uniformity concepts. The popularity of IORT is mainly due to the distinguished obtained results during breast cancer treatment. Despite the presence of some technical challenges, it is expected that the IORT technique will become more widespread in the immediate future.