Comparison of the Volume and Localization of Lumpectomy Cavity Delineated by Clips and Seroma Based on 4DCT Scan for External-Beam Partial Breast Irradiation after Breast Conserving Surgery
Y. Ding,J. Li,W. Wang,M. Zhifang,M. Xu,Q. Shao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.812
2014-01-01
Abstract:Purpose/Objective(s)To explore the volume and localization of the lumpectomy cavity delineated separately by metal clips, seroma, both the clips and seroma based on the four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) in the free-breathing (FB) state.Materials/MethodsFifteen breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery were recruited for EB-PBI. The gross tumor volume (GTV) formed by the clips, the seroma, both the clips and seroma were defined as GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s, respectively. GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s were delineated by one radiation oncologist on the CT images from 10 phases of the breath cycle. The GTV volume and the distance between the center of GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s were all recorded. Conformity index (CI), degree of inclusion (DI) were calculated for GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, and GTVs vs GTVc+s, respectively.ResultsThe volume of GTVc, GTVs, and GTVc+s were (23.15±13.34) cm3, (19.27±17.52) cm3 and (24.60±16.72) cm3, respectively. There was significant difference among the volume of GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s (F = 10.237, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVs included in GTVc was significantly larger than GTVc included in GTVs (0.67±0.21 vs 0.48±0.20; t = -8.287, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVc included in GTVc+s was significantly larger than GTVc+s included in GTVc (0.82±0.11 vs 0.71±0.19; t = -5.794, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVs included in GTVc+s was significantly superior to GTVc+s included in GTVs (0.91±0.14 vs 0.52±0.22; t = -15.485, P = 0.000). The CI of GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, and GTVs vs GTVc+s were 0.36±0.14, 0.60±0.14, 0.53±0.20, respectively. The difference among the CI was statistically significant (F = 84.014, P = 0.000). The centroid distance between GTVc and GTVs, GTVc and GTVc+s, GTVs and GTVc+s were (0.67±0.30) cm, (0.39±0.32) cm, and (0.36±0.18) cm. The DI and CI of GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, GTVs vs GTVc+s were negatively correlated with their centroid distance (P = 0.000).ConclusionsThe volume of GTVc+s was larger than both GTVc and GTVs, and the volume of GTVc was larger than GTVs. The spatial mismatch of GTVc, GTVs, and GTVc+s were negatively correlated with their centroid distance. Although the seroma clarity on the CT scan image is satisfactory, the lumpectomy cavity should be delineated according to both the metal clips and the seroma for EB-PBI. Purpose/Objective(s)To explore the volume and localization of the lumpectomy cavity delineated separately by metal clips, seroma, both the clips and seroma based on the four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) in the free-breathing (FB) state. To explore the volume and localization of the lumpectomy cavity delineated separately by metal clips, seroma, both the clips and seroma based on the four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) in the free-breathing (FB) state. Materials/MethodsFifteen breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery were recruited for EB-PBI. The gross tumor volume (GTV) formed by the clips, the seroma, both the clips and seroma were defined as GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s, respectively. GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s were delineated by one radiation oncologist on the CT images from 10 phases of the breath cycle. The GTV volume and the distance between the center of GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s were all recorded. Conformity index (CI), degree of inclusion (DI) were calculated for GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, and GTVs vs GTVc+s, respectively. Fifteen breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery were recruited for EB-PBI. The gross tumor volume (GTV) formed by the clips, the seroma, both the clips and seroma were defined as GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s, respectively. GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s were delineated by one radiation oncologist on the CT images from 10 phases of the breath cycle. The GTV volume and the distance between the center of GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s were all recorded. Conformity index (CI), degree of inclusion (DI) were calculated for GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, and GTVs vs GTVc+s, respectively. ResultsThe volume of GTVc, GTVs, and GTVc+s were (23.15±13.34) cm3, (19.27±17.52) cm3 and (24.60±16.72) cm3, respectively. There was significant difference among the volume of GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s (F = 10.237, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVs included in GTVc was significantly larger than GTVc included in GTVs (0.67±0.21 vs 0.48±0.20; t = -8.287, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVc included in GTVc+s was significantly larger than GTVc+s included in GTVc (0.82±0.11 vs 0.71±0.19; t = -5.794, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVs included in GTVc+s was significantly superior to GTVc+s included in GTVs (0.91±0.14 vs 0.52±0.22; t = -15.485, P = 0.000). The CI of GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, and GTVs vs GTVc+s were 0.36±0.14, 0.60±0.14, 0.53±0.20, respectively. The difference among the CI was statistically significant (F = 84.014, P = 0.000). The centroid distance between GTVc and GTVs, GTVc and GTVc+s, GTVs and GTVc+s were (0.67±0.30) cm, (0.39±0.32) cm, and (0.36±0.18) cm. The DI and CI of GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, GTVs vs GTVc+s were negatively correlated with their centroid distance (P = 0.000). The volume of GTVc, GTVs, and GTVc+s were (23.15±13.34) cm3, (19.27±17.52) cm3 and (24.60±16.72) cm3, respectively. There was significant difference among the volume of GTVc, GTVs and GTVc+s (F = 10.237, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVs included in GTVc was significantly larger than GTVc included in GTVs (0.67±0.21 vs 0.48±0.20; t = -8.287, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVc included in GTVc+s was significantly larger than GTVc+s included in GTVc (0.82±0.11 vs 0.71±0.19; t = -5.794, P = 0.000). The DI of GTVs included in GTVc+s was significantly superior to GTVc+s included in GTVs (0.91±0.14 vs 0.52±0.22; t = -15.485, P = 0.000). The CI of GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, and GTVs vs GTVc+s were 0.36±0.14, 0.60±0.14, 0.53±0.20, respectively. The difference among the CI was statistically significant (F = 84.014, P = 0.000). The centroid distance between GTVc and GTVs, GTVc and GTVc+s, GTVs and GTVc+s were (0.67±0.30) cm, (0.39±0.32) cm, and (0.36±0.18) cm. The DI and CI of GTVc vs GTVs, GTVc vs GTVc+s, GTVs vs GTVc+s were negatively correlated with their centroid distance (P = 0.000). ConclusionsThe volume of GTVc+s was larger than both GTVc and GTVs, and the volume of GTVc was larger than GTVs. The spatial mismatch of GTVc, GTVs, and GTVc+s were negatively correlated with their centroid distance. Although the seroma clarity on the CT scan image is satisfactory, the lumpectomy cavity should be delineated according to both the metal clips and the seroma for EB-PBI. The volume of GTVc+s was larger than both GTVc and GTVs, and the volume of GTVc was larger than GTVs. The spatial mismatch of GTVc, GTVs, and GTVc+s were negatively correlated with their centroid distance. Although the seroma clarity on the CT scan image is satisfactory, the lumpectomy cavity should be delineated according to both the metal clips and the seroma for EB-PBI.