Evaluation of robustness of optimization methods in breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy using TomoTherapy.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1007/s13246-023-01377-7
Yuya Oki, Hiroaki Akasaka, Kazuyuki Uehara, Kazufusa Mizonobe, Masanobu Sawada, Junya Nagata, Aya Harada, Hiroshi Mayahara
{"title":"Evaluation of robustness of optimization methods in breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy using TomoTherapy.","authors":"Yuya Oki, Hiroaki Akasaka, Kazuyuki Uehara, Kazufusa Mizonobe, Masanobu Sawada, Junya Nagata, Aya Harada, Hiroshi Mayahara","doi":"10.1007/s13246-023-01377-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a popular choice for breast cancer treatment. We aimed to evaluate and compare the robustness of each optimization method used for breast IMRT using TomoTherapy. A retrospective analysis was performed on 10 patients with left breast cancer. For each optimization method (clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash), a corresponding 50 Gy/25 fr plan was created in the helical and direct TomoTherapy modes. The dose-volume histogram parameters were compared after shifting the patients anteriorly and posteriorly. In the helical mode, when the patient was not shifted, the median D1cc (minimum dose delivered to 1 cc of the organ volume) of the breast skin for the clipping and virtual bolus plans was 52.2 (interquartile range: 51.9-52.6) and 50.4 (50.1-50.8) Gy, respectively. After an anterior shift, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping and virtual bolus plans was 56.0 (55.6-56.8) and 50.9 (50.5-51.3) Gy, respectively. When the direct mode was used without shifting the patient, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash plans was 52.6 (51.9-53.1), 53.4 (52.6-53.9), and 52.3 (51.7-53.0) Gy, respectively. After shifting anteriorly, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash plans was 55.6 (54.1-56.4), 52.4 (52.0-53.0), and 53.6 (52.6-54.6) Gy, respectively. The clipping method is not sufficient for breast IMRT. The virtual bolus and skin flash methods were more robust optimization methods according to our analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01377-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a popular choice for breast cancer treatment. We aimed to evaluate and compare the robustness of each optimization method used for breast IMRT using TomoTherapy. A retrospective analysis was performed on 10 patients with left breast cancer. For each optimization method (clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash), a corresponding 50 Gy/25 fr plan was created in the helical and direct TomoTherapy modes. The dose-volume histogram parameters were compared after shifting the patients anteriorly and posteriorly. In the helical mode, when the patient was not shifted, the median D1cc (minimum dose delivered to 1 cc of the organ volume) of the breast skin for the clipping and virtual bolus plans was 52.2 (interquartile range: 51.9-52.6) and 50.4 (50.1-50.8) Gy, respectively. After an anterior shift, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping and virtual bolus plans was 56.0 (55.6-56.8) and 50.9 (50.5-51.3) Gy, respectively. When the direct mode was used without shifting the patient, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash plans was 52.6 (51.9-53.1), 53.4 (52.6-53.9), and 52.3 (51.7-53.0) Gy, respectively. After shifting anteriorly, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash plans was 55.6 (54.1-56.4), 52.4 (52.0-53.0), and 53.6 (52.6-54.6) Gy, respectively. The clipping method is not sufficient for breast IMRT. The virtual bolus and skin flash methods were more robust optimization methods according to our analyses.

Abstract Image

使用 TomoTherapy 评估乳腺调强放射治疗优化方法的稳健性。
调强放射治疗(IMRT)已成为乳腺癌治疗的热门选择。我们的目的是评估和比较使用 TomoTherapy 进行乳腺 IMRT 的每种优化方法的稳健性。我们对 10 名左侧乳腺癌患者进行了回顾性分析。针对每种优化方法(剪切、虚拟栓剂和皮肤闪光),在螺旋和直接 TomoTherapy 模式下创建了相应的 50 Gy/25 fr 计划。比较了患者前后移动后的剂量-容积直方图参数。在螺旋模式下,当患者未移位时,剪切计划和虚拟栓剂计划的乳房皮肤中位 D1cc(1 cc 器官容积的最小剂量)分别为 52.2(四分位间范围:51.9-52.6)和 50.4(50.1-50.8)Gy。前移后,剪切和虚拟栓剂计划的乳房皮肤 D1cc 分别为 56.0(55.6-56.8)和 50.9(50.5-51.3)Gy。在不转移患者的情况下使用直接模式时,剪切、虚拟栓剂和皮肤闪光计划的乳房皮肤 D1cc 分别为 52.6 (51.9-53.1)、53.4 (52.6-53.9) 和 52.3 (51.7-53.0) Gy。前移后,剪切、虚拟栓剂和皮肤闪光计划的乳房皮肤 D1cc 分别为 55.6 (54.1-56.4)、52.4 (52.0-53.0) 和 53.6 (52.6-54.6) Gy。剪切法不足以用于乳腺 IMRT。根据我们的分析,虚拟栓剂法和皮肤闪光法是更稳健的优化方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信