Dosimetric comparison of three different radiotherapy techniques in whole breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for left breast cancer

柴林燕,王科峰,张晓智,范秋红

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121381-201912030-00078

2020-01-01

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 V 5 ((35.92±8.01)% vs. (49.33±12.05)% vs. (60.58±12.94)%), V 10 ((25.50±6.91)% vs. (26.92±7.23)% vs. (41.25±10.37)%), D mean ((10.14±2.43) Gy vs. (11.07±2.88) Gy vs. (14.52±3.32) Gy) of the ipsilateral (left) lung, V 5((0.50±1.45)% vs.(2.17±3.76)% vs. (3.00±4.94)%), and D mean ((0.55±0.21) Gy vs. (1.79±0.58) Gy vs. (1.75±0.70) Gy) of the contralateral (right) lung and the V 5 ((0.17±0.58)% vs. (1.92±4.10)% vs. (8.25±8.61)%) and D mean ((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 V 30 ((4.50±2.88)% vs. (5.00±3.25)% vs. (8.42±2.78)%) and V 40 ((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.