Dosimetric comparison between Hybrid-IMRT and Hybrid-VMAT using deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery(PDF)
《中国医学物理学杂志》[ISSN:1005-202X/CN:44-1351/R]
- Issue:
- 2022年第8期
- Page:
- 936-940
- Research Field:
- 医学放射物理
- Publishing date:
Info
- Title:
- Dosimetric comparison between Hybrid-IMRT and Hybrid-VMAT using deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery
- Author(s):
- SHI Yabin1; 2; HUANG Rong3; GAO Yan2; CHEN Hongtao2; XU Yi4; CHEN Weisi2; LIANG Xiaomin2; ZHENG Fang2
- 1.Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, China 2.Department of Radiation Oncology, Shenzhen Peoples Hospital?the Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University the First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen 518020, China 3. Department of Radiology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, China 4. the Second Department of?nfectious?isease, the Third Peoples Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518112, China
- Keywords:
- Keywords: breast cancer deep inspiration breath-hold hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetry
- PACS:
- R737.9；R811.1
- DOI:
- DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2022.08.003
- Abstract:
- Abstract: Objective To compare the dosimetric differences between hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (Hybrid-IMRT) and hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (Hybrid-VMAT) using deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique for left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery, thereby providing reference for treatment plan selection. Methods Two kinds of treatment plans, namely Hybrid-IMRT plan and Hybrid-VMAT plan, were designed for 26 patients with left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery. The dose-volume histogram was used to compare the doses to target areas and organs-at-risk between Hybrid-IMRT plan and Hybrid-VMAT plan. Results Compared with Hybrid-IMRT plan, Hybrid-VMAT plan was superior in D90, D98 and homogeneity index of planning target area (P<0.05), but inferior in GI (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in D2, CI and Dmean between two plans (P>0.05). Hybrid-IMRT plan was advantageous over Hybrid-VMAT plan in terms of the V5, V20, V30 and Dmean of the ipsilateral lung (P<0.05), and the V10, Dmean of the heart (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between two plans in the V40 and V30 of the heart (P>0.05). Hybrid-IMRT plan was superior to Hybrid-VMAT plan in the Dmean and V5 of contralateral breast (P<0.05), but the difference in Dmax was trivial (P>0.05). The spinal dose of the two plans met the clinical dose requirements, while the spinal Dmax of Hybrid-IMRT plan was much less than that of Hybrid-VMAT plan (P<0.05). Conclusion Both of the two hybrid plans meet the clinical dose requirements, but Hybrid-IMRT plan can significantly reduce the radiation dose to organs-at-risk.
Last Update: 2022-09-05