We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
For chest wall irradiation in breast cancer patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have made tremendous changes in treatment delivery.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric parameters in IMRT and 3DCRT plans.
Materials and methods
IMRT and 3DCRT plans were generated for 25 randomly selected postmastectomy breast cancer patients. The prescribed dose (PD) was 50 Gray (Gy) in 25 fractions (#) at the rate of 2 Gy/# with 5#/week. Dose volume histogram was evaluated for planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to organs at risk (OARs). All the dosimetric parameters were compared using unpaired student’s t-test.
Results
PTV coverage was significantly better in IMRT, although the 90% of PTV was well covered by 90% of PD in all plans by both the techniques. Homogeneity index and conformity index were better in IMRT. V5 Gy and Dmean of contralateral lung, contralateral breast and heart (right side chest wall cases) were found to be lesser in 3DCRT compared with that in IMRT. However, there was no significant difference in V20 Gy of ipsilateral lung and V25 Gy of heart (left side chest wall cases) in all the plans by both the techniques.
Conclusion
Adequate target coverage was achieved by both the techniques, however, dose to OARs were lesser in 3DCRT plans as compared with that in IMRT plans. Thus, it can be concluded that 3DCRT is as efficient as IMRT for the chest wall irradiation.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.