skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Skin-sparing Helical Tomotherapy vs 3D-conformal Radiotherapy for Adjuvant Breast Radiotherapy: In Vivo Skin Dosimetry Study

Journal Article · · International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
 [1]; ;  [2]; ; ; ; ;  [1];  [3]; ;  [1];  [1]
  1. Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)
  2. Division of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)
  3. Division of Statistics and Epidemiology, Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)

Purpose: We investigated whether treatment-planning system (TPS)-calculated dose accurately reflects skin dose received for patients receiving adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) with standard three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) or skin-sparing helical tomotherapy (HT). Methods and Materials: Fifty patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial investigating acute skin toxicity from adjuvant breast RT with 3D-CRT compared to skin-sparing HT, where a 5-mm strip of ipsilateral breast skin was spared. Thermoluminescent dosimetry or optically stimulated luminescence measurements were made in multiple locations and were compared to TPS-calculated doses. Skin dosimetric parameters and acute skin toxicity were recorded in these patients. Results: With HT there was a significant correlation between calculated and measured dose in the medial and lateral ipsilateral breast (r = 0.67, P<.001; r = 0.44, P=.03, respectively) and the medial and central contralateral breast (r = 0.73, P<.001; r = 0.88, P<.001, respectively). With 3D-CRT there was a significant correlation in the medial and lateral ipsilateral breast (r = 0.45, P=.03; r = 0.68, P<.001, respectively); the medial and central contralateral breast (r = 0.62, P=.001; r = 0.86, P<.001, respectively); and the mid neck (r = 0.42, P=.04, respectively). On average, HT-calculated dose overestimated the measured dose by 14%; 3D-CRT underestimated the dose by 0.4%. There was a borderline association between highest measured skin dose and moist desquamation (P=.05). Skin-sparing HT had greater skin homogeneity (homogeneity index of 1.39 vs 1.65, respectively; P=.005) than 3D-CRT plans. HT plans had a lower skin{sub V50} (1.4% vs 5.9%, respectively; P=.001) but higher skin{sub V40} and skin{sub V30} (71.7% vs 64.0%, P=.02; and 99.0% vs 93.8%, P=.001, respectively) than 3D-CRT plans. Conclusion: The 3D-CRT TPS more accurately reflected skin dose than the HT TPS, which tended to overestimate dose received by 14% in patients receiving adjuvant breast RT.

OSTI ID:
22149378
Journal Information:
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 83, Issue 5; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2012 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English