Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Saini, A. ♦ Hwang, C. ♦ Das, I.
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ♦ RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ♦ COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ♦ HAZARDS ♦ HEART ♦ LUNGS ♦ MAMMARY GLANDS ♦ PLANNING ♦ RADIATION DOSES ♦ RADIOTHERAPY ♦ RESPIRATION
Abstract Purpose: To compare dose to organs at risk (OAR) for left sided breast radiation therapy with comparable planning target volume (PTV) coverage in three techniques; free breathing in supine position (FB), deep inspirational breath hold in supine (DIBH) and free breathing in prone position (PP). Methods: Ten left sided breast cancer patients suitable for this study underwent a CT scan in three techniques e.g. supine, FB and DIBH and prone position (PP). One radiation oncologist contoured the PTV and OAR (cardiac components) based on RTOG guidelines. Treatment plans were optimized using field-in-field technique with AAA algorithm. Each plan was optimized to provide identical coverage to PTV such that a reasonable comparison in OAR dosimetry can be evaluated. The prescribed dose to PTV were 42.56 Gy; 2.66 Gy in 16 fractions. Results: Average lung dose parameters; Dmean, V10, V20 and V30 were 0.5 Gy, 0.6%, 0.2%, and 0.1% respectively in PP which is significantly lower than FB (5.9 Gy, 14.2%, 10.7 %, and 8.4%) and DIBH (5.8 Gy, 14.3%, 10.2%, 7.8%). Similarly average heart Dmean, V2.5, V5, V10, and V20 were much lower in PP (1.2Gy, 9.1%, 2.1%, 0.8%, and 0.4%), and in DIBH (1.2 Gy, 10.6%, 1.7%, 0.5%, and 0.1%) compared to FB (2.6 Gy, 21%, 7.2%, 4.4% and 3.3%) respectively. Similar findings were also noted in the heart component left anterior descending artery (LAD) and Left ventricle (LV) which are correlated to radiation related toxicity. Conclusion: Based on the calculated dose, FB technique provides highest heart and lung dose. Prone has lowest lung dose, and DIBH has lowest LAD dose. It is found that PP is always superior for heart, LV, LAD and lung as compared to FB. This conclusion is in contrast to some published study concluding that prone position has no benefit for heart sparing.
ISSN 00942405
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2016-06-15
Publisher Place United States
Journal Medical Physics
Volume Number 43
Issue Number 6


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab