Abstract:
Objective To compare the dosimetry of three different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques in patients undergoing whole-breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early left breast cancer.
Methods Between March 2019 and August 2019, 12 female patients with early left breast cancer who underwent breast-conservative surgery in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University were analyzed retrospectively. The patient age was between 32 and 50 years, with an average of 42.4±6.8 years. The IMRT-based hybrid plan (3D conformal radiation therapy or 3DCRT + IMRT), the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based hybrid plan (3DCRT+VMAT), and the tangential VMAT plan (t-VMAT) were designed. The dosimetric parameters of the target and the organs at risk and treatment efficiency were compared among the three plans, and t-test was used for data analysis.
Results Both the dose distribution in the target and dose to the organs at risk can meet the clinical requirements of the three plans. The conformal index (0.84±0.05 vs. 0.74±0.06 vs. 0.79±0.06) and uniformity index (0.10±0.03 vs. 0.14±0.03 vs. 0.13±0.03) of 3DCRT+VMAT were the best, and the difference was statistically significant compared with the two other plans (t=–9.01–6.47, all P<0.05). The protective effect of 3DCRT+IMRT was the best for V5 ((35.92±8.01)% vs. (49.33±12.05)% vs. (60.58±12.94)%), V10 ((25.50±6.91)% vs. (26.92±7.23)% vs. (41.25±10.37)%), Dmean ((10.14±2.43) Gy vs. (11.07±2.88) Gy vs. (14.52±3.32) Gy) of the ipsilateral (left) lung, V5( (0.50±1.45)% vs.(2.17±3.76)% vs. (3.00±4.94)%), and Dmean ((0.55±0.21) Gy vs. (1.79±0.58) Gy vs. (1.75±0.70) Gy) of the contralateral (right) lung and the V5 ((0.17±0.58)% vs. (1.92±4.10)% vs. (8.25±8.61)%) and Dmean ((0.86±0.38) Gy vs. (1.65±0.45) Gy vs. (2.46±0.86) Gy) of the contralateral (right) breast. 3DCRT+VMAT was significantly better than 3DCRT+IMRT and t-VAMT in V30 ((4.50±2.88)% vs. (5.00±3.25)% vs. (8.42±2.78)%) and V40 ((2.50±2.11)% vs. (3.25±2.53)% vs. (4.58±2.07)%) of the heart (t=–17.11–3.45, all P<0.05). The mean monitor unit of 3DCRT+IMRT was the lowest (280.90±52.18), but the treatment time of t-VMAT was the shortest.
Conclusions The protective effect of 3DCRT+IMRT in the low-dose area (<20 Gy) for the ipsilateral lung, contralateral lung, and contralateral breast was better. 3DCRT+VMAT has obvious advantages in improving the uniformity and conformability of the target area and has better protection in the high-dose area (>20 Gy) for the contralateral lung and heart. Thus, t-VMAT shortens the treatment time and improves treatment efficiency and patient comfort.