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

Title: SU-F-T-520: Dosimetric Comparison of Radiation Treatment Plans for Whole Breast Irradiation Between 3D Conformal in Prone and Supine Positions Vs. VMAT and IMRT in Supine Positions

Abstract

Purpose: The target volume for Whole Breast Irradiation (WBI) is dictated by location of tumor mass, breast tissue distribution, and involvement of lymph nodes. Dose coverage and Organs at Risk (OARs) sparing can be difficult to achieve in patients with unfavorable thoracic geometries. For these cases, inverse-planned and 3D-conformal prone treatments can be alternatives to traditional supine 3D-conformal plans. A dosimetric comparison can determine which of these techniques achieve optimal target coverage while sparing OARs. Methods: This study included simulation datasets for 8 patients, 5 of whom were simulated in both supine and prone positions. Positioning devices included breast boards and Vaclok bags for the supine position, and prone breast boards for the prone position. WBI 3-D conformal plans were created for patients simulated in both positions. Additional VMAT and IMRT WBI plans were made for all patients in the supine position. Results: Prone and supine 3D conformal plans had comparable PTV coverage. Prone 3D conformal plans received a significant 50% decrease to V20, V10, V5 and V30% for the ipsilateral lung in contrast to the supine plans. The heart also experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose in the prone position, and V20, V10, V5 and V2 had significantlymore » lower values than the supine plan. Supine IMRT and VMAT breast plans obtained comparable PTV coverage. The heart experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose with inverse modulated plans when compared to the supine 3D conformal plan, while V20, V10, V5 and V2 showed higher values with inverse modulated plans than with supine 3D conformal plans. Conclusion: Prone 3D-conformal, and supine inverse planned treatments were generally superior in sparing OARs to supine plans with comparable PTV coverage. IMRT and VMAT plans offer sparing of OARs from high dose regions with an increase of irradiated volume in the low dose regions.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649106
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ANIMAL TISSUES; IRRADIATION; LYMPH NODES; MAMMARY GLANDS; PATIENTS; POSITIONING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION

Citation Formats

Bejarano Buele, A, and Parsai, E. SU-F-T-520: Dosimetric Comparison of Radiation Treatment Plans for Whole Breast Irradiation Between 3D Conformal in Prone and Supine Positions Vs. VMAT and IMRT in Supine Positions. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956705.
Bejarano Buele, A, & Parsai, E. SU-F-T-520: Dosimetric Comparison of Radiation Treatment Plans for Whole Breast Irradiation Between 3D Conformal in Prone and Supine Positions Vs. VMAT and IMRT in Supine Positions. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956705.
Bejarano Buele, A, and Parsai, E. 2016. "SU-F-T-520: Dosimetric Comparison of Radiation Treatment Plans for Whole Breast Irradiation Between 3D Conformal in Prone and Supine Positions Vs. VMAT and IMRT in Supine Positions". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956705.
@article{osti_22649106,
title = {SU-F-T-520: Dosimetric Comparison of Radiation Treatment Plans for Whole Breast Irradiation Between 3D Conformal in Prone and Supine Positions Vs. VMAT and IMRT in Supine Positions},
author = {Bejarano Buele, A and Parsai, E},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The target volume for Whole Breast Irradiation (WBI) is dictated by location of tumor mass, breast tissue distribution, and involvement of lymph nodes. Dose coverage and Organs at Risk (OARs) sparing can be difficult to achieve in patients with unfavorable thoracic geometries. For these cases, inverse-planned and 3D-conformal prone treatments can be alternatives to traditional supine 3D-conformal plans. A dosimetric comparison can determine which of these techniques achieve optimal target coverage while sparing OARs. Methods: This study included simulation datasets for 8 patients, 5 of whom were simulated in both supine and prone positions. Positioning devices included breast boards and Vaclok bags for the supine position, and prone breast boards for the prone position. WBI 3-D conformal plans were created for patients simulated in both positions. Additional VMAT and IMRT WBI plans were made for all patients in the supine position. Results: Prone and supine 3D conformal plans had comparable PTV coverage. Prone 3D conformal plans received a significant 50% decrease to V20, V10, V5 and V30% for the ipsilateral lung in contrast to the supine plans. The heart also experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose in the prone position, and V20, V10, V5 and V2 had significantly lower values than the supine plan. Supine IMRT and VMAT breast plans obtained comparable PTV coverage. The heart experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose with inverse modulated plans when compared to the supine 3D conformal plan, while V20, V10, V5 and V2 showed higher values with inverse modulated plans than with supine 3D conformal plans. Conclusion: Prone 3D-conformal, and supine inverse planned treatments were generally superior in sparing OARs to supine plans with comparable PTV coverage. IMRT and VMAT plans offer sparing of OARs from high dose regions with an increase of irradiated volume in the low dose regions.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956705},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare setup precision, respiration-related breast movement and treatment time between prone and supine positions for whole-breast irradiation. Methods and Materials: Ten patients with early-stage breast carcinoma after breast-conserving surgery were treated with prone and supine whole breast-irradiation in a daily alternating schedule. Setup precision was monitored using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Respiration-related breast movement in the vertical direction was assessed by magnetic sensors. The time needed for patient setup and for the CBCT procedure, the beam time, and the length of the whole treatment slot were also recorded. Results: Random andmore » systematic errors were not significantly different between positions in individual patients for each of the three axes (left-right, longitudinal, and vertical). Respiration-related movement was smaller in prone position, but about 80% of observations showed amplitudes <1 mm in both positions. Treatment slots were longer in prone position (21.2 {+-} 2.5 min) than in supine position (19.4 {+-} 0.8 min; p = 0.044). Conclusion: Comparison of setup precision between prone and supine position in the same patient showed no significant differences in random and systematic errors. Respiratory movement was smaller in prone position. The longer treatment slots in prone position can probably be attributed to the higher repositioning need.« less
  • Purpose: To compare dosimetrically four different techniques of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in the same patient. Methods and Materials: Thirteen post-lumpectomy interstitial brachytherapy (IB) patients underwent imaging with preimplant computed tomography (CT) in the prone and supine position. These CT scans were then used to generate three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and prone and supine helical tomotherapy (PT and ST, respectively) APBI plans and compared with the treated IB plans. Dose-volume histogram analysis and the mean dose (NTD{sub mean}) values were compared. Results: Planning target volume coverage was excellent for all methods. Statistical significance was considered to be a pmore » value <0.05. The mean V100 was significantly lower for IB (12% vs. 15% for PT, 18% for ST, and 26% for 3D-CRT). A greater significant differential was seen when comparing V50 with mean values of 24%, 43%, 47%, and 52% for IB, PT, ST, and 3D-CRT, respectively. The IB and PT were similar and delivered an average lung NTD{sub mean} dose of 1.3 Gy{sub 3} and 1.2 Gy{sub 3}, respectively. Both of these methods were statistically significantly lower than the supine external beam techniques. Overall, all four methods yielded similar low doses to the heart. Conclusions: The use of IB and PT resulted in greater normal tissue sparing (especially ipsilateral breast and lung) than the use of supine external beam techniques of 3D-CRT or ST. However, the choice of APBI technique must be tailored to the patient's anatomy, lumpectomy cavity location, and overall treatment goals.« less
  • Purpose: To determine the dosimetric and toxicity differences between prone and supine position intensity-modulate radiotherapy in endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods: Forty-seven consecutive endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant RT were analyzed. Of these, 21 were treated in prone position and 26 in the supine position. Dose-volume histograms for normal tissue structures and targets were compared between the two groups. Acute and chronic toxicity were also compared between the cohorts. Results: The percentage of volume receiving 10, 20, 30, 40, 45, and 50 Gy for small bowel was 89.5%, 69%, 33%, 12.2%, 5%, and 0% in themore » prone group and 87.5%, 62.7%, 26.4%, 8%, 4.3%, and 0% in the supine group, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. The dose-volume histograms for bladder and rectum were also comparable, except for a slightly greater percentage of volume receiving 10 Gy (1.5%) and 20 Gy (5%) for the rectum in the prone group. Acute small bowel toxicities were Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 2 in 14 patients in the prone group vs. Grade 1 in 6 patients and Grade 2 in 19 patients in the supine group. Chronic toxicity was Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 3 in 1 patient in the prone group and Grade 1 in 5 patients in the supine group. Conclusion: These preliminary results suggest that no difference exists in the dose to the normal tissue and toxicity between prone and supine intensity-modulated radiotherapy for endometrial cancer. Longer follow-up and more outcome studies are needed to determine whether any differences exist between the two approaches.« less
  • Purpose: To compare biophysical indices of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) treatment plans for whole brain radiation therapy following the NRG-CC001 protocol. Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of fifteen patients were planned with Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System using VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT techniques. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the whole brain volume excluding a uniform three-dimensional 5mm expansion of the hippocampus volume. Prescribed doses in all plans were 30 Gy delivered over 10 fractions normalized to a minimum of 95% of the target volume receiving 100% of themore » prescribed dose. The NRG Oncology protocol guidelines were followed for contouring and dose-volume constraints. A single radiation oncologist evaluated all treatment plans. Calculations of statistical significance were performed using Student’s paired t-test. Results: All VMAT and IMRT plans met the NRG-CC001 protocol dose-volume criteria. The average equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the PTV for VMAT vs. IMRT was respectively (19.05±0.33 Gy vs. 19.38±0.47 Gy) for α/β of 2 Gy and (19.47±0.30 Gy vs. 19.84±0.42 Gy) for α/β of 10 Gy. For the PTV, the average mean and maximum doses were 2% and 5% lower in VMAT plans than in IMRT plans, respectively. The average EUD and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the hippocampus in VMAT vs. IMRT plans were (15.28±1.35 Gy vs. 15.65±0.99 Gy, p=0.18) and (0.305±0.012 Gy vs. 0.308±0.008 Gy, p=0.192), respectively. The average EUD and NTCP for the optic chiasm were both 2% higher in VMAT than in IMRT plans. Conclusion: Though statistically insignificant, VMAT plans indicate a lower hippocampus EUD than IMRT plans. Also, a small variation in NTCP was found between plans.« less
  • Purpose: The prone treatment position has been used to reduce ipsilateral lung and heart dose in left breast radiation. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the difference in the dosimetry between prone and supine treatment positions. Methods: Eight left breast cancer patients were simulated in both the supine and prone positions as a pretreatment evaluation for the optimal treatment position. Treatment plans were created for all patients in both the supine and prone positions using a field in field three dimensional planning technique. Prescribed dose was 45 Gy delivered by two tangential photon fields. Irradiated volume (IV) was evaluatedmore » by V50, V100, and dose to lung and heart by V5, V10, V20, and the mean dose were evaluated. Results: All dosimetry metrics for both the supine and prone plans met our internal normal structure guidelines which are based on Quantec data. The average IVs (50% and 100%) were 2223cc and 1361cc prone, 2315cc and 1315cc supine. The average ipsilateral lung Mean dose (0.83Gy prone vs 5.8Gy supine), V5 (1.6% prone vs 20.9% supine), V10 (0.78% prone vs 15% supine) and V20 (0.36% prone vs 11% supine) were significantly lower in prone position. Heart Mean dose (1.4Gy prone vs 2.9Gy supine), V10 (1.4% prone vs 5.0% supine) and V20 (0.4% prone vs 3.5% supine) were found improved for all patients except one where the mean dose was the same and all other values were improved. Conclusion: The prone position offer preferable dosimetry for all patients planned in our study. These patients were chosen based on the physician’s belief that they would benefit from prone treatment either because they had large pendulous breasts or due to the amount of heart seen in the field on CT simulation.« less