Breast-Conserving Radiotherapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost—A Dosimetric Comparison of 3DCRT, VMAT and IMRT: Do We Really have a Better Plan?
- 13 Downloads
Background and Purpose
The availability of more advanced technology like hypo-fractionation has the potential of being the new standard of care in breast cancer. This study evaluates whether 3DCRT with a field-in-field technique (FIF) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) could provide a dosimetrically comparable plan delivered to VMAT or IMRT.
Materials and Methods
3DCRT-FIF-SIB, VMAT and IMRT-SIB plans were generated for 20 patients. The plans were compared for planning target volume coverage (PTV 95), homogeneity and conformity, dose delivered to lungs, heart and C/L breast.
3DCRT FIF provided better sparing of C/L breast V1 and V5, whole lung V5, p = 0.000. The VMAT plans spared heart V30: (0.1 ± 0.46 vs. 11.5 ± 18.3) p = 0.000 and I/L lung V20: (19.3 ± 5 vs. 32.2 ± 11.1) p = 0.000. It provided a better coverage V95: (97 ± 0.8 vs. 95 ± 2.9) p = 0.002 and sparing of the heart V30: (0.1 ± 0.5 vs. 8.6 ± 11.5) p < 0.002 and lungs I/L V20: (19.3 ± 5.0 vs. 30.7 ± 6.1) p = 0.000. The treatment was faster with less exposure in terms of MU: (529 ± 57.8 vs. 1024 ± 298) p = 0.000.
3DCRT provides a dosimetrically acceptable alternative to more advanced technologies. VMAT and IMRT provide better sparing of heart and lungs. VMAT has a slight benefit of conformity, reduced exposure and shorter treatment time.
Keywords3DCRT FIF IMRT VMAT SIB
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights Statement
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 7.Joseph B, Farooq N, Kumar S, Vijay CR, Puthur KJ, Ramesh C, Lokesh V. Breast-conserving radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost; field-in-field three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy versus inverse intensity-modulated radiotherapy—a dosimetric comparison: Do we need intensity-modulated radiotherapy? South Asian J Cancer. 2018;7(3):163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Moorthy S, Sakr H, Hasan S, Samuel J, Al-Janahi S, Murthy N. Dosimetric study of SIB-IMRT versus SIB-3DCRT for breast cancer with breath-hold gated technique. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2013;1(1):010110.Google Scholar
- 10.Rtog.org. 2018. cited 13 October 2018. https://www.rtog.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vzJFhPaBipE%3d&tabid=236.
- 12.Herbert C, Nichol A, Olivotto I, Weir L, Woods R, Speers C, Truong P, Tyldesley S. The impact of hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy on local relapse in patients with grade 3 early breast cancer: a population-based cohort study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(5):2086–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Boike TP, Walker E, Nurushev T, Grills IS, Moran JM, Feng M, Hayman J, Pierce LJ. Differences in the acute toxic effects of breast radiotherapy by fractionation schedule: comparative analysis of physician-assessed and patient-reported outcomes in a large multicenter cohort. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):918–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Sioshansi S, Rivard MJ, Hiatt JR, Hurley AA, Lee Y, Wazer DE. Dose modeling of noninvasive image-guided breast brachytherapy in comparison to electron beam boost and three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(2):410–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Hijal T, Fournier-Bidoz N, Castro-Pena P, Kirova YM, Zefkili S, Bollet MA, Dendale R, Campana F, Fourquet A. Simultaneous integrated boost in breast conserving treatment of breast cancer: a dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94(3):300–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar