Improving organ dose sparing in left-sided breast cancer with yaw-limited volumetric modulated arc therapy: A dosimetric comparison to conventional and intensity modulated radiation therapy approaches.

Abstract

Background: To assess the dose-sparing capabilities of a yaw-limited volumetric modulated arc therapy (YL_VMAT) beam setup for adjacent organs at risk (OAR) in comparison with 3D-conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional VMAT for radiation therapy in left-sided breast cancer patients.

Methods: In total, 80 treatment plans for 20 patients, of which 10 patients underwent CT-scans in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) and 10 patients in free-breathing (FB) technique. Besides generally tangential-weighted static and IMRT beams, VMAT treatment plans with approximately 270° arc length have been compared and analyzed to a multi-field, yaw-adapted, unconventional partial VMAT technique retrospectively. The prescription dose was set to 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions.

Results: We achieved a more pronounced steeper dose falloff directed from the thoracic wall to the adjacent lung tissue resulting in a significantly better ipsilateral lung and considerably cardiac dose sparing using the YL_VMAT method in general. Compared with standard techniques (IMRT, VMAT, 3D-CRT), YL-VMAT in combination with DIBH can achieve lower mean doses for the heart (1.05 Gy vs. 1.73 Gy, 2.16 Gy and 1.44 Gy), the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (3.68 Gy vs. 6.53 Gy, 5.13 Gy and 8.64 Gy) and the left lung (3.59 Gy vs. 5.39 Gy, 4.79 Gy and 5.87 Gy), respectively. Also with FB, the corresponding mean doses for the left lung and cardiac structures were lower with the YL-VMAT method than with IMRT (heart: 1.70 Gy vs. 2.44 Gy; LAD: 6.50 Gy vs. 11.97 Gy; left lung: 3.10 Gy vs. 4.72 Gy), VMAT (heart: 1.70 Gy vs. 2.52 Gy; LAD: 6.50 Gy vs. 9.06 Gy; left lung: 3.10 Gy vs. 4.46 Gy) and 3D-CRT (heart: 1.70 Gy vs. 2.78 Gy; LAD: 6.50 Gy vs. 15.09 Gy; left lung: 3.10 Gy vs. 5.77 Gy). In addition, we found out superiority of YL_VMAT for the V5, V10, and V20 Gy to the left lung. For DIBH and FB, all differences for the left lung were significant, with p < 0.05.

Conclusions: With the YL_VMAT technique, dose exposures to radiosensitive OARs like the lung, heart and LAD artery can be reduced considerably to very low values in comparison to already established planning methods. The benefits must be weighed against the potential risks induced by an increased dose exposure to the contralateral breast.