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

Title: Individualized Selection of Beam Angles and Treatment Isocenter in Tangential Breast Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Abstract

Purpose and Objective: Propose a novel method for individualized selection of beam angles and treatment isocenter in tangential breast intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: For each patient, beam and isocenter selection starts with the fully automatic generation of a large database of IMRT plans (up to 847 in this study); each of these plans belongs to a unique combination of isocenter position, lateral beam angle, and medial beam angle. The imposed hard planning constraint on patient maximum dose may result in plans with unacceptable target dose delivery. Such plans are excluded from further analyses. Owing to differences in beam setup, database plans differ in mean doses to organs at risk (OARs). These mean doses are used to construct 2-dimensional graphs, showing relationships between: (1) contralateral breast dose and ipsilateral lung dose; and (2) contralateral breast dose and heart dose (analyzed only for left-sided). The graphs can be used for selection of the isocenter and beam angles with the optimal, patient-specific tradeoffs between the mean OAR doses. For 30 previously treated patients (15 left-sided and 15 right-sided tumors), graphs were generated considering only the clinically applied isocenter with 121 tangential beam angle pairs. For 20 of the 30more » patients, 6 alternative isocenters were also investigated. Results: Computation time for automatic generation of 121 IMRT plans took on average 30 minutes. The generated graphs demonstrated large variations in tradeoffs between conflicting OAR objectives, depending on beam angles and patient anatomy. For patients with isocenter optimization, 847 IMRT plans were considered. Adding isocenter position optimization next to beam angle optimization had a small impact on the final plan quality. Conclusion: A method is proposed for individualized selection of beam angles in tangential breast IMRT. This may be especially important for patients with cardiac risk factors or an enhanced risk for the development of contralateral breast cancer.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2]; ;  [1];  [3];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus M.C. Cancer Institute, Rotterdam (Netherlands)
  2. (Italy)
  3. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649943
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 98; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BEAMS; CALCULATION METHODS; GRAPH THEORY; MAMMARY GLANDS; NEOPLASMS; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIATION HAZARDS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Penninkhof, Joan, E-mail: j.penninkhof@erasmusmc.nl, Spadola, Sara, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Breedveld, Sebastiaan, Baaijens, Margreet, Lanconelli, Nico, and Heijmen, Ben. Individualized Selection of Beam Angles and Treatment Isocenter in Tangential Breast Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.008.
Penninkhof, Joan, E-mail: j.penninkhof@erasmusmc.nl, Spadola, Sara, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Breedveld, Sebastiaan, Baaijens, Margreet, Lanconelli, Nico, & Heijmen, Ben. Individualized Selection of Beam Angles and Treatment Isocenter in Tangential Breast Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.008.
Penninkhof, Joan, E-mail: j.penninkhof@erasmusmc.nl, Spadola, Sara, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Breedveld, Sebastiaan, Baaijens, Margreet, Lanconelli, Nico, and Heijmen, Ben. 2017. "Individualized Selection of Beam Angles and Treatment Isocenter in Tangential Breast Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.008.
@article{osti_22649943,
title = {Individualized Selection of Beam Angles and Treatment Isocenter in Tangential Breast Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy},
author = {Penninkhof, Joan, E-mail: j.penninkhof@erasmusmc.nl and Spadola, Sara and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna and Breedveld, Sebastiaan and Baaijens, Margreet and Lanconelli, Nico and Heijmen, Ben},
abstractNote = {Purpose and Objective: Propose a novel method for individualized selection of beam angles and treatment isocenter in tangential breast intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: For each patient, beam and isocenter selection starts with the fully automatic generation of a large database of IMRT plans (up to 847 in this study); each of these plans belongs to a unique combination of isocenter position, lateral beam angle, and medial beam angle. The imposed hard planning constraint on patient maximum dose may result in plans with unacceptable target dose delivery. Such plans are excluded from further analyses. Owing to differences in beam setup, database plans differ in mean doses to organs at risk (OARs). These mean doses are used to construct 2-dimensional graphs, showing relationships between: (1) contralateral breast dose and ipsilateral lung dose; and (2) contralateral breast dose and heart dose (analyzed only for left-sided). The graphs can be used for selection of the isocenter and beam angles with the optimal, patient-specific tradeoffs between the mean OAR doses. For 30 previously treated patients (15 left-sided and 15 right-sided tumors), graphs were generated considering only the clinically applied isocenter with 121 tangential beam angle pairs. For 20 of the 30 patients, 6 alternative isocenters were also investigated. Results: Computation time for automatic generation of 121 IMRT plans took on average 30 minutes. The generated graphs demonstrated large variations in tradeoffs between conflicting OAR objectives, depending on beam angles and patient anatomy. For patients with isocenter optimization, 847 IMRT plans were considered. Adding isocenter position optimization next to beam angle optimization had a small impact on the final plan quality. Conclusion: A method is proposed for individualized selection of beam angles in tangential breast IMRT. This may be especially important for patients with cardiac risk factors or an enhanced risk for the development of contralateral breast cancer.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.008},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 98,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To demonstrate the large-scale clinical implementation and performance of an automated treatment planning methodology for tangential breast intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Automated planning was used to prospectively plan tangential breast IMRT treatment for 1661 patients between June 2009 and November 2012. The automated planning method emulates the manual steps performed by the user during treatment planning, including anatomical segmentation, beam placement, optimization, dose calculation, and plan documentation. The user specifies clinical requirements of the plan to be generated through a user interface embedded in the planning system. The automated method uses heuristic algorithms to definemore » and simplify the technical aspects of the treatment planning process. Results: Automated planning was used in 1661 of 1708 patients receiving tangential breast IMRT during the time interval studied. Therefore, automated planning was applicable in greater than 97% of cases. The time for treatment planning using the automated process is routinely 5 to 6 minutes on standard commercially available planning hardware. We have shown a consistent reduction in plan rejections from plan reviews through the standard quality control process or weekly quality review multidisciplinary breast rounds as we have automated the planning process for tangential breast IMRT. Clinical plan acceptance increased from 97.3% using our previous semiautomated inverse method to 98.9% using the fully automated method. Conclusions: Automation has become the routine standard method for treatment planning of tangential breast IMRT at our institution and is clinically feasible on a large scale. The method has wide clinical applicability and can add tremendous efficiency, standardization, and quality to the current treatment planning process. The use of automated methods can allow centers to more rapidly adopt IMRT and enhance access to the documented improvements in care for breast cancer patients, using technologies that are widely available and already in clinical use.« less
  • The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical implementation of tangential field IMRT using sliding window technique and to compare dosimetric parameters with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Twenty breast cancer patients were randomly selected for comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based treatment plan with 3DCRT. Inverse treatment was performed using the sliding window technique, employing the Eclipse Planning System (version 7.1.59, Varian, Palo Alto, CA). The dosimetric parameters compared were V{sub 95} (the percentage of target volume getting {>=}95% of prescribed dose), V{sub 105}, V{sub 110}, and dose homogeneity index, DHI (percentage of target volume gettingmore » between 95% and 110% of prescribed dose). The mean V{sub 95}, DHI, V{sub 105}, and V{sub 110} for target volume for IMRT vs. 3D were 90.6% (standard deviation [SD]: 3.2) vs. 91% (SD: 3.0), 87.7 (SD: 6.0) vs. 82.6 (SD: 7.8), 27.3% (SD: 20.3) vs. 49.4% (SD: 14.3), and 2.8 (SD: 5.6) vs. 8.4% (SD: 7.4), respectively. DHI was increased by 6.3% with IMRT compared to 3DCRT (p < 0.05). The reductions of V{sub 105} and V{sub 110} for the IMRT compared to 3DCRT were 44.7% and 66.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean dose and V{sub 30} for heart with IMRT were 2.3 (SD: 1.1) and 1.05 (SD: 1.5) respectively, which was a reduction by 6.8% and 7.9%, respectively, in comparison with 3D. Similarly, the mean dose and V{sub 20} for the ipsilateral lung and the percentage of volume of contralateral volume lung receiving > 5% of prescribed dose with IMRT were reduced by 9.9%, 2.2%, and 35%, respectively. The mean of total monitor units used for IMRT and 3DCRT was about the same (397 vs. 387). The tangential field IMRT for intact breast using sliding window technique was successfully implemented in the clinic. We have now treated more than 1000 breast cancer patients with this technique. The dosimetric data suggest improved dose homogeneity in the breast and reduction in the dose to lung and heart for IMRT treatments, which may be of clinical value in potentially contributing to improved cosmetic results and reduced late treatment-related toxicity.« less
  • Purpose: To compare dose volume histograms of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with those of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) for the treatment of stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to explore the possibility of individualized radical radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Dose volume histograms designed to deliver IMRT at 60 to 63 Gy, PSPT at 74 Gy, and IMPT at the same doses were compared and the use of individualized radical radiotherapy was assessed in patients with extensive stage IIIB NSCLC (n = 10 patients for each approach). These patients were selected based on theirmore » extensive disease and were considered to have no or borderline tolerance to IMRT at 60 to 63 Gy, based on the dose to normal tissue volume constraints (lung volume receiving 20 Gy [V20] of <35%, total mean lung dose <20 Gy; spinal cord dose, <45 Gy). The possibility of increasing the total tumor dose with IMPT for each patient without exceeding the dose volume constraints (maximum tolerated dose [MTD]) was also investigated. Results: Compared with IMRT, IMPT spared more lung, heart, spinal cord, and esophagus, even with dose escalation from 63 Gy to 83.5 Gy, with a mean MTD of 74 Gy. Compared with PSPT, IMPT allowed further dose escalation from 74 Gy to a mean MTD of 84.4 Gy (range, 79.4-88.4 Gy) while all parameters of normal tissue sparing were kept at lower or similar levels. In addition, IMPT prevented lower-dose target coverage in patients with complicated tumor anatomies. Conclusions: IMPT reduces the dose to normal tissue and allows individualized radical radiotherapy for extensive stage IIIB NSCLC.« less
  • Purpose: For prostate treatments, robust evidence regarding the superiority of either intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton therapy is currently lacking. In this study we investigated the circumstances under which proton therapy should be expected to outperform IMRT, particularly the proton beam orientations and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) assumptions. Methods and Materials: For 8 patients, 4 treatment planning strategies were considered: (A) IMRT; (B) passively scattered standard bilateral (SB) proton beams; (C) passively scattered anterior oblique (AO) proton beams, and (D) AO intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). For modalities (B)-(D) the dose and linear energy transfer (LET) distributions weremore » simulated using the TOPAS Monte Carlo platform and RBE was calculated according to 3 different models. Results: Assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1, our implementation of IMRT outperformed SB proton therapy across most normal tissue metrics. For the scattered AO proton plans, application of the variable RBE models resulted in substantial hotspots in rectal RBE weighted dose. For AO IMPT, it was typically not possible to find a plan that simultaneously met the tumor and rectal constraints for both fixed and variable RBE models. Conclusion: If either a fixed RBE of 1.1 or a variable RBE model could be validated in vivo, then it would always be possible to use AO IMPT to dose-boost the prostate and improve normal tissue sparing relative to IMRT. For a cohort without rectum spacer gels, this study (1) underlines the importance of resolving the question of proton RBE within the framework of an IMRT versus proton debate for the prostate and (2) highlights that without further LET/RBE model validation, great care must be taken if AO proton fields are to be considered for prostate treatments.« less
  • Purpose: To report the 5-year outcomes using whole-breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of early-stage-breast cancer at the Fox Chase Cancer Center. Methods and Materials: A total of 946 women with early-stage breast cancer (stage 0, I, or II) were treated with IMRT after surgery with or without systemic therapy from 2003-2010. Whole-breast radiation was delivered via an IMRT technique with a median whole-breast radiation dose of 46 Gy and median tumor bed boost of 14 Gy. Endpoints included local-regional recurrence, cosmesis, and late complications. Results: With a median follow-up of 31 months (range, 1-97 months), there weremore » 12 ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) and one locoregional recurrence. The 5-year actuarial IBTR and locoregional recurrence rates were 2.0% and 2.4%. Physician-reported cosmestic outcomes were available for 645 patients: 63% were considered 'excellent', 33% 'good', and <1.5% 'fair/poor'. For physician-reported cosmesis, boost doses {>=}16 Gy, breast size >900 cc, or boost volumes >34 cc were significantly associated with a 'fair/poor' cosmetic outcome. Fibrosis, edema, erythema, and telangectasia were also associated with 'fair/poor' physician-reported cosmesis; erythema and telangectasia remained significant on multivariate analysis. Patient-reported cosmesis was available for 548 patients, and 33%, 50%, and 17% of patients reported 'excellent', 'good', and 'fair/poor' cosmesis, respectively. The use of a boost and increased boost volume: breast volume ratio were significantly associated with 'fair/poor' outcomes. No parameter for patient-reported cosmesis was significant on multivariate analysis. The chances of experiencing a treatment related effect was significantly associated with a boost dose {>=}16 Gy, receipt of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, large breast size, and electron boost energy. Conclusions: Whole-breast IMRT is associated with very low rates of local recurrence at 5 years, 83%-98% 'good/excellent' cosmetic outcomes, and minimal chronic toxicity, including late fibrosis.« less