Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T06:57:14.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional (3D), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and hybrid IMRT for left-sided postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2023

Siwika Thongthanom  and
Wannapha Nobnop Open the ORCID record for Wannapha Nobnop [Opens in a new window]
Siwika Thongthanom
Affiliation:
Graduate School, Medical Physics Program, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Department of Radiology, Samutsakhon Hospital, Samutsakhon, Thailand
Wannapha Nobnop*
Affiliation:
The Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Northern Thai Research Group of Radiation Oncology (NTRG-RO), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
*
Corresponding author: Wannapha Nobnop; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aimed to determine the suitable breast treatment technique for a small facility’s hospital with limited staff and equipment resources. The benefits and drawbacks of each technique should be considered to guide radiation oncologists choose the appropriate treatment option for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) patients.

Methods and Materials:

This study included the computed tomography images of 15 patients who received left-sided PMRT. The patient’s characteristics were classified into two groups: 1. irradiation of only the chest wall (CW) and 2. CW lymph nodes plus supraclavicular lymph nodes (SPCs). All 15 PMRT patients were generated in 4 treatment techniques including 3DCRT, field-in-field (FiF), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and hybrid (3DCRT + IMRT). Each treatment technique’s dosimetric parameters and treatment time were compared.

Result:

All four treatment plans met the acceptable criteria. The IMRT plans achieved the highest plan quality scores for two groups of PMRT patients but require the longest treatment time, whereas the 3DCRT and FiF plans demonstrated superiority for organ at risk (OAR) sparing and required the shortest treatment time when compared with the IMRT and hybrid plans.

Conclusion:

The IMRT plan had the highest plan quality but required the most time to treat. Treatment times are critical in facilities with limited resources. As a result, the FiF plan was found to be a suitable technique for both CW-only and CW plus SPC irradiation due to its short treatment time and high plan quality scores for OAR dose sparing.

Keywords

dosimetrichybrid IMRTIMRTpostmastectomytreatment time
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e105
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

World Health Organization. Breast cancer. https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/breast-cancer/en/. Accessed on 15th April 2020.Google Scholar
Imsamran, W, Supaattagorn, P, Chiawiriyabunya, I. Cancer in Thailand, 9th edition. Bangkok: National Cancer Institute, 2017: 43–46.Google Scholar
Penn Medicine: University of Pennsylvania Health System. Types of radiation therapy for breast cancer treatment. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/treatment/radiation-for-breast-cancer.html. Accessed on 20th April 2020.Google Scholar
Mondal, D, Sharma, D N. External beam radiation techniques for breast cancer in the new millennium: new challenging perspectives. J Egypt Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 28 (4): 211–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, L C, Mutter, R W, Halyard, M Y. Benefits, risks, and safety of external beam radiation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Women Health 2015; 7: 449–458. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S55552 Google ScholarPubMed
Brownlee, Z, Garg, R, Listo, M, Zavitsanos, P, Wazer, D E, Huber, K E. Late complications of radiation therapy for breast cancer: evolution in techniques and risk over time. Gland Surg 2018; 7 (4): 371–378. doi: 10.21037/gs.2018.01.05 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, T, Tan, P, Tang, J. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer: is it ready for prime time? Breast Cancer – Target Ther 2017; 9: 177–183.Google Scholar
Ozyigit, G, Gultekin, M. Current role of modern radiotherapy techniques in the management of breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5 (3): 425–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, X, Ouyang, S, Wang, H et al. Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3D-CRT, IP-IMRT, and hybrid IMRT. Oncol Rep 2013; 31 (5): 2195–2205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paddick, I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (3): 219–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hua, Z, You-Qun, L, Yuan, Z et al. A comparative dosimetric study of seven radiation techniques for breast cancer after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Transl Cancer Res 2017; 6 (4): 788–797.Google Scholar
Fuli, Z., Yadi, W., Weidong, X. et al. Dosimetric evaluation of different intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for breast cancer after conservative surgery. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2015; 14 (5): 515–523.Google Scholar
Guang-Hua, J., Li-Xin, C., Xiao-Wu, D et al. A comparative dosimetric study for treating left-sided breast cancer for small breast size using five different radiotherapy techniques: conventional tangential field, filed-in-filed, Tangential-IMRT, Multi-beam IMRT and VMAT. Radiat Oncol 2013, 8: 89.Google Scholar
Aras, S, İkizceli, T, Aktan, M. Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques (IMRT) with radiotherapy dose simulations for left-sided mastectomy patients. Eur J Breast Health 2019; 15 (2): 85–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed