Abstract
An intensity-modulated radiation-therapy (IMRT)-based technique, blocked single iso-centric IMRT (IMRT), is compared to multi-center IMRT (MIRT) and other conventional techniques such as three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of breast cancer patients. Four different plans were devised and compared for 15 breast cancer patients, all of whom had early stage disease and had undergone breast conserving surgery. A total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions was prescribed as the planning target volume in all treatment plans. The doses to the ipsilateral lung, heart, and opposite breast were compared using a dose-volume histogram. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and coverage index (CoVI) were evaluated and compared among the four treatment techniques. The lifetime attributable risk (LAR) associated with each of the four techniques from age at exposure of 30 to 100 years was measured for the organs at risk. We found that MIRT had a better CoVI (1.02 ± 0.13 and 1.01 ± 0.04, respectively) and IMRT had a better CI (0.88 ± 0.04, and 0.87 ± 0.02, respectively) compared to the other three modalities. All four techniques had similar HIs. Moreover, we found that IMRT and MIRT were less likely to cause radiation induced-pneumonitis, 3D-CRT had the lowest LAR, IMRT and MIRT had similar LARs and VMAT had the highest LAR. In study we found that compared to the VMAT, MIRT and IMRT provided adequate the planning target volume (PTV) coverage and reduced the risk of secondary cancers in most of the organs at risk (OARs), while 3D-CRT had the lowest secondary-cancer risks. Therefore, 3D-CRT is still a reasonable choice for whole breast RT except for patients with complex PTV shapes, in which cases IMRT and MIRT may provide better target coverage.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call