Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment

Duan Yunlong; Wang Xiaopeng; Yang Tao; Qu Baolin; Cai Boning; Dai Xiangkun; Ge Ruigang; Xu Wei; Xu Shouping

doi:doi:10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment

Duan Yunlong, Wang Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Baolin, Cai Boning, Dai Xiangkun, Ge Ruigang, Xu Wei, Xu Shouping

Published in Cancer Research Journal (Volume 7, Issue 4)

Received: 4 August 2019 Accepted: 29 August 2019 Published: 9 October 2019

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (p<0.001), the CIs of dose distribution and the target were 0.40±0.12 vs 0.48±0.12 vs 0.57±0.12 (p<0.01), and the HIs were 0.20±0.02 vs 0.13±0.02 vs 0.17±0.02 (p<0.01). Compared with TF and FFIO, FIF-IMRT showed smaller in the dose of D₂ and volume of V₁₀₇ and V₁₁₀ in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D_mean, V₁₀ and V₂₀ of ipsilateral lung, the D₁ of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.

Published in	Cancer Research Journal (Volume 7, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
Page(s)	129-135
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Breast Cancer, Tangential Field, 3DCRT, IMRT, Dosimetry

References

[1]	Yan L, Dong LH. Dosimetric comparison study of intensity modulated radiation methods for breast-conserving therapy [D/OL]. Networking publishing: No. 1 clinical Medical college of Jilin University, 2011.
[2]	Lu HY, Zhe H. Analysis of the effect postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer [J]. Friends of Health, 2019, April, Vol 2: 9.
[3]	Liu YL, Li WH, Chang L, et al. The progress of Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy for early breast cancer [J]. Journal of Modern Oncology, 2013, 21 (03): 656-658.
[4]	Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, et al. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26 (3): 386-391.
[5]	Yu JM, Li JB. The progress of surgery plus radiotherapy for breast cancer [J]. Chinese Journal of Breast Disease, 2007, 6 (3): 13-22.
[6]	Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “boost vs. no boosts trial.” EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups [J]. Radiother Oncol, 2000, 55 (3): 219-232.
[7]	Zhao JM, Zhang N. Advancements of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer [J]. Modern Oncology, 2019, 27 (12): 2215-2219.
[8]	ICRU (2010). International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). ICRU Report 83, J. ICRU Vol. 10 (1) (Oxford University Press, Oxford): 26-29.
[9]	Ji Js, Han CW, Jang JW, et al. Helical tomotherapy with concurrent capecitabine for the treatment of inoperable pancreatic caner [J]. Radiat Oncol, 2010, 5: 59-61.
[10]	Li QH. Indications for Breast Cancer radiation therapy [EB/OL]. Electronic Journal Of Practical Gynecologic Endocrinology, 2019, 6 (15): 77-78.
[11]	Wang ShY, Lou JL. Advances in research on cardiac injury caused by radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer [J]. Zhejiang Clinical Medcine, 2019, 21 (6): 870-872.
[12]	Coon AB, Dickler A, Kirk MC, et al. Tomotherapy and multifield intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning reduce cardiac doses in left-sided breast cancer patients with unfavorable cardiac anatomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy, 2010, 78 (1): 104-110.
[13]	Schubert LK, Gondi V, Sengbusch E, et al. Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3DCRT, forward-planned IMRT, inverse-planned IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and topotherapy. Radioth Oncol, 2011, 100 (2): 241-246.
[14]	Jagsi R, Moran J, Marsh R et al. Evaluation of four techniques using intensity modulated Radiotherapy for comprehensive locoregional irradiation of breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy, 2010, 78 (5): 1594-1603.
[15]	Goddu SM, Chaudhari S, Mamalui-Hunter M et al. Helical tomotherapy planning for left-sided breast cancer patients with positive lymph nodes: comparison to conventional multiport breast technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy, 2009, 73 (4): 1243-1251.
[16]	Beckham WA, Popescu CC, Patenaude VV, et al. Is multibeam IMRT better than standard treatment for patients with left-sided breast cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy, 2007, 69 (3): 918-924.
[17]	Franco P, Zeverino M, Migliaccio F, et al. Intensity-modulated and hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost adjuvant breast radiation employing statics ports of tomotherapy (TomoDirect): a prospective phase II trial, ” J Can Res Clin Oncol, 2014, 140 (1): 167-177.
[18]	Abo-Madyan Y, Aziz MH, Aly MM, et al. Second cancer risk after 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT for breast cancer. Radioth Oncol, 2014, 110 (3): 471-476.
[19]	Taylor M, Perez CA, Halverson K, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic result after conservation therapy for breast cancer [J]. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Physics, 1995, 31 (3): 753-764.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Duan Yunlong, Wang Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Baolin, Cai Boning, et al. (2019). Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment. Cancer Research Journal, 7(4), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Duan Yunlong; Wang Xiaopeng; Yang Tao; Qu Baolin; Cai Boning, et al. Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment. Cancer Res. J. 2019, 7(4), 129-135. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Duan Yunlong, Wang Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Baolin, Cai Boning, et al. Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment. Cancer Res J. 2019;7(4):129-135. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12,
  author = {Duan Yunlong and Wang Xiaopeng and Yang Tao and Qu Baolin and Cai Boning and Dai Xiangkun and Ge Ruigang and Xu Wei and Xu Shouping},
  title = {Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment},
  journal = {Cancer Research Journal},
  volume = {7},
  number = {4},
  pages = {129-135},
  doi = {10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.crj.20190704.12},
  abstract = {Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (ppp2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.},
 year = {2019}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment
AU  - Duan Yunlong
AU  - Wang Xiaopeng
AU  - Yang Tao
AU  - Qu Baolin
AU  - Cai Boning
AU  - Dai Xiangkun
AU  - Ge Ruigang
AU  - Xu Wei
AU  - Xu Shouping
Y1  - 2019/10/09
PY  - 2019
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
T2  - Cancer Research Journal
JF  - Cancer Research Journal
JO  - Cancer Research Journal
SP  - 129
EP  - 135
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8214
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
AB  - Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (ppp2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.
VL  - 7
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Duan Yunlong

Radiotherapy Centre, Gansu Province Wuwei Tumor Hospital, Wuwei, China; Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Wang Xiaopeng

Radiotherapy Centre, Gansu Province Wuwei Tumor Hospital, Wuwei, China
Yang Tao

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Qu Baolin

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Cai Boning

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Dai Xiangkun

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Ge Ruigang

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Xu Wei

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
Xu Shouping

Radiotherapy Department, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Duan Yunlong, Wang Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Baolin, Cai Boning, et al. (2019). Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment. Cancer Research Journal, 7(4), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Duan Yunlong; Wang Xiaopeng; Yang Tao; Qu Baolin; Cai Boning, et al. Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment. Cancer Res. J. 2019, 7(4), 129-135. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Duan Yunlong, Wang Xiaopeng, Yang Tao, Qu Baolin, Cai Boning, et al. Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment. Cancer Res J. 2019;7(4):129-135. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12,
  author = {Duan Yunlong and Wang Xiaopeng and Yang Tao and Qu Baolin and Cai Boning and Dai Xiangkun and Ge Ruigang and Xu Wei and Xu Shouping},
  title = {Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment},
  journal = {Cancer Research Journal},
  volume = {7},
  number = {4},
  pages = {129-135},
  doi = {10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.crj.20190704.12},
  abstract = {Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (ppp2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.},
 year = {2019}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Dosimetric Evaluation of TF-3DCRT, FIF-Forward IMRT and FF Inversely Optimized IMRT for Breast Conserving Treatment
AU  - Duan Yunlong
AU  - Wang Xiaopeng
AU  - Yang Tao
AU  - Qu Baolin
AU  - Cai Boning
AU  - Dai Xiangkun
AU  - Ge Ruigang
AU  - Xu Wei
AU  - Xu Shouping
Y1  - 2019/10/09
PY  - 2019
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
T2  - Cancer Research Journal
JF  - Cancer Research Journal
JO  - Cancer Research Journal
SP  - 129
EP  - 135
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8214
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190704.12
AB  - Objective: To compare the dosimetric characteristic of tangential field 3D conformal (TF-3DCRT, TF), field-in-field intensity-modulated (FIF-IMRT, FIF) and fixed-field inversely optimized intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (FFIO-IMRT, FFIO) for breast conserving treatment, and explore the benefit and efficiency for the three techniques. Materials and Methods: TF-3DCRT, FIF-IMRT and FFIO-IMRT treatment plans were analyzed for 16 breast patients (8 right-sided and 8 left-sided) after breast-conserving surgery. The target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured by the same physician in the CT images. The prescription dose was 50Gy/25f. TF-3DCRT and FIF-IMRT were designed using Varian Eclipse Ver10.0 planning system, and FFIO-IMRT in the planning system of Pinnacle Ver9.6. Treatment plans were compared according to dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis in terms of PTV homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) as well as OARs dose and volume parameters, and the efficiency was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, the treatment plans showed statistically significant difference between TF-3DCRT, FIF and FFIO-IMRT. The MUs were 244.9±8.3MU vs 285.9±20.3MU vs 534.0±56.2MU (ppp2 and volume of V107 and V110 in the target. FFIO-IMRT generally increased the D mean, V10 and V20 of ipsilateral lung, the D1 of contralateral breast and the mean dose of contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord relative to TF and FIF techniques. Conclusion: In breast-conserving RT, FIF-IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distribution and delivery efficiency, and the patients are most likely to benefit from FIF-IMRT.
VL  - 7
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download