Hybrid planning techniques for early-stage left-sided breast cancer: dose distribution analysis and estimation of projected secondary cancer-relative risk

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate three techniques of irradiation of left-sided breast cancer patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), hybrid Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (h-IMRT), and hybrid Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (h-VMAT, h-ARC), in terms of dose distribution in the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). The second aim was to estimate the projected relative risk of radiation-induced secondary cancers for hybrid techniques. Materials and methods Three treatment plans were prepared in 3D-CRT, h-IMRT, and h-VMAT techniques for each of the 40 patients, who underwent CT simulation in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). For hybrid techniques, plans were created by combining 3D-CRT and dynamic fields with an 80%/20% dose ratio for 3D-CRT and IMRT or VMAT. Cumulative dose–volume histograms were used to compare dose distributions within the PTV and OARs (heart, left anterior descending coronary artery [LAD], left and right lung [LL, RL], right breast [RB]). Projected risk ratios for secondary cancers were estimated relative to 3D-CRT using the organ equivalent dose (OED) concept for the Schneider’s linear exponential, plateau, and full mechanistic dose–response model. Results All plans fulfilled the PTV criterium: V95%≥95%. Compared to 3D-CRT, both hybrid techniques showed significantly better target coverage (PTV: V95%>98%, p < 0.001), and the best conformality was achieved by h-ARC plans (CI: 1.18 ± 0.09, p < 0.001). Compared to 3D-CRT and h-ARC, h-IMRT increased the average sum of monitor units (MU) over 129.9% (p < 0.001). H-ARC increased the mean dose of contralateral organs and the LL V5Gy parameter (p < 0.001). Both hybrid techniques significantly reduced the D max of the heart by 5 Gy. Compared to h-IMRT, h-ARC increased secondary cancer projected relative risk ratios for LL, RL, and RB by 18, 152, and 81%, respectively. Conclusions The results confirmed that both hybrid techniques provide better target quality and OARs sparing than 3D-CRT. Hybrid VMAT delivers less MU compared to hybrid IMRT but may increase the risk of radiation-induced secondary malignancies.