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.
In this study we compared radiation dose received by organs at risk (OARs) after breast conservation surgery(BCS) and mastectomy in patients with left breast cancer.
Materials and methods
Total 30 patients, 15 each of BCS and mastectomy were included in this study. Planning Computerised Tomography (CT) was done for each patient. Chest wall, whole breast, heart, lungs, LAD, proximal and distal LAD, and contra lateral breast was contoured for each patient. Radiotherapy plans were made by standard tangent field. Dose prescribed was 40Gy/16#/3 weeks. Mean heart dose, LAD, proximal and distal LAD, mean and V5 of right lung, and mean, V5, V10 and V20 of left lung, mean dose and V2 of contra lateral breast were calculated for each patient and compared between BCS and mastectomy patients using student’s T test.
Results
Mean doses to the heart, LAD, proximal LAD and distal LAD were 3.364Gy, 16.06Gy, 2.7Gy, 27.5Gy; and 4.219Gy, 14.653Gy, 4.306Gy, 24.6Gy, respectively for mastectomy and BCS patients. Left lung mean dose, V5, V10 and V20 were 5.96Gy, 16%, 14%, 12.4%; and 7.69Gy, 21%, 18% and 16% in mastectomy and BCS patients, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in the doses to the heart and left lung between mastectomy and BCS. Mean dose to the right lung was significantly less in mastectomy as compared to BCS, 0.29Gy vs. 0.51Gy, respectively (p = 0.007). Mean dose to the opposite breast was significantly lower in patients with mastectomy than BCS (0.54Gy Vs 0.37Gy, p = 0.007). The dose to the distal LAD was significantly higher than proximal LAD both in BCS (24.6Gy Vs 4.3Gy, p = <0.0001) and mastectomy (27.5Gy Vs 2.7Gy, p = <0.0001) patients.
Conclusion
There was no difference in doses received by heart and left lung between BCS and mastectomy patients. Mean doses to the right lung and breast were significantly less in mastectomy patients.
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Canadian women. Surgery is often the first line of treatment for low-risk early stage patients, followed by adjuvant radiation therapy to reduce the risk of local recurrence and prevent metastasis after lumpectomy or mastectomy. For high-risk patients with node positive disease or are at greater risk of nodal metastasis, radiation therapy will involve treatment of the intact breast or chest-wall as well as the regional lymph nodes.
Materials and methods:
We retrospectively evaluated the treatment plans of 354 patients with breast cancer with nodes positive or were at high risk of nodal involvement treated at our cancer centre. All patients were treated with a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the intact breast or chest-wall and 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the supraclavicular region and, based on patient suitability and tolerance, were treated either using the deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) or free-breathing (FB) techniques.
Results:
Based on patient suitability and tolerance, 130 (36·7%) patients were treated with DIBH and 224 (63·3%) with FB techniques. There were 169 (47·7%) patients treated with intact breast, whereas 185 (52·3%) were treated for post-mastectomy chest-wall. The mean PTV_eval V92%, V95%, V100% and V105% for all patients are 99·4 ± 0·7, 97·6 ± 1·6, 74·8 ± 7·9 and 1·5 ± 3·2%, respectively. The mean ipsilateral lung V10Gy, V20Gy and V30Gy are 30·0 ± 5·3, 22·4 ± 4·7 and 18·4 ± 4·3% for intact breast and 30·9 ± 5·8, 23·5 ± 5·4 and 19·4 ± 5·0% for post-mastectomy patients with FB, respectively. The corresponding values for patients treated using DIBH are 26·3 ± 5·9, 18·9 ± 5·0 and 15·6 ± 4·7% for intact breast and 27·5 ± 6·5, 20·6 ± 5·7 and 17·1 ± 5·2% for post-mastectomy patients, respectively. The mean heart V10Gy, V20Gy, is 1·8 ± 1·7, 0·9 ± 1·0 for intact breast and 3·1 ± 2·2, 1·7 ± 1·6 for post-mastectomy patients with FB, respectively. The corresponding values with the DIBH are 0·5 ± 0·7, 0·1 ± 0·4 for intact breast and 1·1 ± 1·4, 0·4 ± 0·7 for post-mastectomy patients, respectively.
Conclusion:
The use of 3 and/or 4 field hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for radiation therapy of high-risk node positive breast cancer patients provides an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose uniformity, conformity and homogeneity in the breast or post-mastectomy chest-wall volume with minimal doses to the organs at risk. The development and implementation of a consistent treatment plan acceptability criteria in radiotherapy programmes would establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that would reduce significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans.
An in-house self-held respiration monitoring device (SHRMD) was developed for providing deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy. The use of SHRMD is evaluated in terms of reproducibility, stability and heart dose reduction.
Methods and materials:
Sixteen patients receiving radiotherapy of left breast cancer were planned for treatment with both a free breathing (FB) scan and a DIBH scan. Both FB and DIBH plans were generated for comparison of the heart, left anterior descending (LAD) artery and lung dose. All patients received their treatments with DIBH using SHRMD. Megavoltage cine images were acquired during treatments for evaluating the reproducibility and stability of treatment position using SHRMD.
Results:
Compared with FB plans, the maximum dose to the heart by DIBH technique with SHRMD was reduced by 29·9 ± 15·6%; and the maximum dose of the LAD artery was reduced by 41·6 ± 18·3%. The inter-fractional overall mean error was 0·01 cm and the intra-fractional overall mean error was 0·04 cm.
Conclusion:
This study demonstrated the potential benefits of using the SHRMD for DIBH to reduce the heart and LAD dose. The patients were able to perform stable and reproducible DIBHs.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.