Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Thrower, Sara L. ♦ Shaitelman, Simona F. ♦ Bloom, Elizabeth ♦ Salehpour, Mohammad ♦ Gifford, Kent
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ♦ IRRADIATION ♦ MAMMARY GLANDS ♦ PATIENTS ♦ RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS ♦ RADIOTHERAPY
Abstract Purpose: To compare the treatment plans for accelerated partial breast irradiation calculated by the new commercially available collapsed cone convolution (CCC) and current standard TG-43–based algorithms for 50 patients treated at our institution with either a Strut-Adjusted Volume Implant (SAVI) or Contura device. Methods and Materials: We recalculated target coverage, volume of highly dosed normal tissue, and dose to organs at risk (ribs, skin, and lung) with each algorithm. For 1 case an artificial air pocket was added to simulate 10% nonconformance. We performed a Wilcoxon signed rank test to determine the median differences in the clinical indices V90, V95, V100, V150, V200, and highest-dosed 0.1 cm{sup 3} and 1.0 cm{sup 3} of rib, skin, and lung between the two algorithms. Results: The CCC algorithm calculated lower values on average for all dose-volume histogram parameters. Across the entire patient cohort, the median difference in the clinical indices calculated by the 2 algorithms was <10% for dose to organs at risk, <5% for target volume coverage (V90, V95, and V100), and <4 cm{sup 3} for dose to normal breast tissue (V150 and V200). No discernable difference was seen in the nonconformance case. Conclusions: We found that on average over our patient population CCC calculated (<10%) lower doses than TG-43. These results should inform clinicians as they prepare for the transition to heterogeneous dose calculation algorithms and determine whether clinical tolerance limits warrant modification.
ISSN 03603016
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2016-08-01
Publisher Place United States
Journal International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Volume Number 95
Issue Number 5


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab