A retrospective bilateral breast proton pencil beam scanning and photon volumetric arc therapy planning comparison.

Therapeutic radiology and oncology Pub Date : 2023-12-30 Epub Date: 2023-11-03 DOI:10.21037/tro-22-23
Dennis Mah, Laura Happersett, Gabriely Del Rosario, Seng Boh Lim, Linda Hong
{"title":"A retrospective bilateral breast proton pencil beam scanning and photon volumetric arc therapy planning comparison.","authors":"Dennis Mah, Laura Happersett, Gabriely Del Rosario, Seng Boh Lim, Linda Hong","doi":"10.21037/tro-22-23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advanced bilateral breast cancers with local and regional nodal involvement are rare and challenging to plan due to conflicting demands of conformality, uniformity and sparing of organs at risk such as heart and lungs. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) protons have been shown to provide improved organ at risk (OAR) sparing, conformality and homogeneity compared to photon techniques including three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), and tomotherapy. We performed a blinded comparison between VMAT and PBS plans and extend this comparison with a case study of a patient win expander <i>in situ</i> during radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this case-controlled study, five bilateral breast patients' clinical proton plan datasets were anonymized and replanned using VMAT. Additionally, for one patient with bilateral expanders, we compared two PBS planning techniques that are used clinically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the similar target volume coverage, significant differences were found for heart and lung sparing, particularly for lower isodoses. For instance, mean lung V5 was 96.7% <i>vs.</i> 39% for VMAT <i>vs.</i> PBS and mean heart dose was 11.4 <i>vs.</i> 0.69 Gy (RBE) for VMAT <i>vs.</i> protons. The expander patient's plan did not differ significantly from whole breast or chest wall patients in terms of coverage or in gains from PBS compared to VMAT. For example, for comparable homogeneity indexes (HIs) of 1.2 (VMAT) and 1.1 (PBS), the mean heart dose is 11 <i>vs.</i> 1 Gy. The gains from PBS are approximately a factor of 10 compared to a factor of <2 for estimated gains to VMAT plans using deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) described in the literature.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PBS provides better sparing of heart and lungs compared to VMAT in whole breast, chest wall and expander patients. Further study with more patients is required to validate these conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":93236,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic radiology and oncology","volume":"7 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11623292/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic radiology and oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tro-22-23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advanced bilateral breast cancers with local and regional nodal involvement are rare and challenging to plan due to conflicting demands of conformality, uniformity and sparing of organs at risk such as heart and lungs. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) protons have been shown to provide improved organ at risk (OAR) sparing, conformality and homogeneity compared to photon techniques including three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), and tomotherapy. We performed a blinded comparison between VMAT and PBS plans and extend this comparison with a case study of a patient win expander in situ during radiotherapy.

Methods: In this case-controlled study, five bilateral breast patients' clinical proton plan datasets were anonymized and replanned using VMAT. Additionally, for one patient with bilateral expanders, we compared two PBS planning techniques that are used clinically.

Results: For the similar target volume coverage, significant differences were found for heart and lung sparing, particularly for lower isodoses. For instance, mean lung V5 was 96.7% vs. 39% for VMAT vs. PBS and mean heart dose was 11.4 vs. 0.69 Gy (RBE) for VMAT vs. protons. The expander patient's plan did not differ significantly from whole breast or chest wall patients in terms of coverage or in gains from PBS compared to VMAT. For example, for comparable homogeneity indexes (HIs) of 1.2 (VMAT) and 1.1 (PBS), the mean heart dose is 11 vs. 1 Gy. The gains from PBS are approximately a factor of 10 compared to a factor of <2 for estimated gains to VMAT plans using deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) described in the literature.

Conclusions: PBS provides better sparing of heart and lungs compared to VMAT in whole breast, chest wall and expander patients. Further study with more patients is required to validate these conclusions.

双侧乳房质子束扫描与光子体积弧治疗方案的回顾性比较。
背景:伴有局部和区域淋巴结累及的晚期双侧乳腺癌是罕见的,由于对合规性、统一性和保留危险器官(如心脏和肺)的要求相互矛盾,因此很难计划。与包括三维适形放疗、调强放疗(IMRT)、体积弧线治疗(VMAT)和断层治疗在内的光子技术相比,铅笔束扫描(PBS)质子已被证明可以改善危及器官(OAR)的保护、适形性和均匀性。我们在VMAT和PBS计划之间进行了盲法比较,并将这种比较扩展到放疗期间患者原位扩张器的病例研究。方法:在本病例对照研究中,对5例双侧乳房患者的临床质子计划数据集进行匿名化并使用VMAT进行重新规划。此外,对于一名双侧扩张器患者,我们比较了两种临床使用的PBS计划技术。结果:对于相似的靶体积覆盖,发现了显著差异的心脏和肺的保留,特别是低等剂量。例如,VMAT和PBS的平均肺V5分别为96.7%和39%,VMAT和质子的平均心脏剂量分别为11.4 Gy和0.69 Gy (RBE)。扩张器患者的计划与全乳或胸壁患者在覆盖范围或PBS与VMAT相比的收益方面没有显着差异。例如,对于可比较的均匀性指数(HIs)为1.2 (VMAT)和1.1 (PBS),平均心脏剂量为11 Gy vs. 1 Gy。结论:在全乳、胸壁和扩张器患者中,与VMAT相比,PBS提供了更好的心脏和肺部保护。需要更多患者的进一步研究来验证这些结论。
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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