Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces the dose to the contralateral breast when compared to conventional tangential fields for primary breast irradiation
- 249 Downloads
To determine the dose received by the contralateral breast during primary breast irradiation using IMRT compared to conventional tangential field techniques.
Methods and materials
Between March 2003 and March 2004, 83 patients with breast carcinoma were treated using 6, 10, or mixed 6/18 MV photons (65 with tangential IMRT technique and 18 with 3-dimensional technique using tangential fields with wedges) for primary breast irradiation following breast-conserving surgery. Paired thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were placed on each patient’s contralateral breast, 4 and 8 cm from the center of the medial border of the tangential field. The TLDs were left on the patient during a single fraction and then measured 24 h afterwards.
The mean dose delivered with photons to the primary breast for all patients was 4999 cGy (SD=52) with a mean single fraction dose of 199 cGy (SD=8). The mean percent of the prescribed dose to the contralateral breast measured at the 4- and 8-cm positions were 7.19% (SD=2.28) and 4.63% (SD=2.12), respectively, for patients treated with IMRT compared to 11.22% (SD=2.73) and 10.70% (SD=3.44), respectively, for the patients treated with conventional tangential field techniques. This represented a 36% and 57% reduction at the 4 and 8-cm contralateral positions, respectively, in the mean dose to the contralateral breast using IMRT compared to 3-D technique which was statistically significant (p<0.0005, <0.0005, respectively).
Primary breast irradiation with tangential IMRT technique significantly reduces the dose to the contralateral breast compared to conventional tangential field techniques.
Keywordsbreast cancer contralateral breast dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
We would like to posthumously thank Debbie Sonnik for her time and assistance in the preparation of this article.
- 1.American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2003. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, 2003Google Scholar
- 2.Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong JH, Wolmark N, Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, Moe RE, White E, Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institute of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma Cancer 86:628–637, 1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hall EJ, Radiation carcinogenesis. In: Hall EJ, (ed) Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 5. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1994. pp 144–165Google Scholar
- 15.Heron DE, Gerszten K, Selvaraj RN, King GC, Sonnik D, Gallion H, Comerci J, Edwards RP, Wu A, Andrade RS, Kalnicki S, Conventional 3D conformal versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the adjuvant treatment of gynecologic malignancies: a comparative dosimetric study of dose–volume histograms Gynecol Oncol 91 39–45, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar