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.
Evaluating the improvements of placing the treatment isocentre at the boost centre of mass (CoM) in a hybrid treatment for breast cancer radiotherapy.
Material and methods:
Twenty-two patients were planned in two isocentre locations with two forward intensity-modulated radiation therapy (fIMRT) tangentials to the breast and a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the boost. A simultaneous integrated boost technique was used. Breast Boost (BB) Vector was investigated as a criterion for selecting an appropriate isocentre placement. Various metrics for boost, breast and hybrid plans were analysed using analysis of variance statistics.
Results:
Comparing hybrid plans at the boost CoM vs. hybrid plans at the breast CoM, no significant differences were found. Analysis of relative variations of planning target volume (PTV) boost coverage vs. BB Vector indicated an upgrade in boost CoM isocentre strategy. Dose to organs at risk was comparable: V5Gy (26·24 vs. 25·69%, p = 0·8), V20Gy (14·66 vs. 14·58%, p = 0·959) and the mean dose (7·37 Gy vs. 7·26 Gy, p = 0·879) to ipsilateral lung; V5Gy (15·60 vs. 15·22%, p = 0·903), and the mean dose (4·91 Gy vs. 4·86 Gy, p = 0·950) to heart and dose to free breast of boost (46·71 Gy vs. 46·62 Gy, p = 0·408).
Findings:
The hybrid fIMRT–VMAT technique centred at the boost CoM resulted equivalent to plans centred at the breast CoM, while benefiting from an enhancement in PTV boost coverage for patients with BB Vector superior to 5.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.