Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:27:21.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improvement of matching fields using coplanar field border method in postmastectomy radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2021

Anupong Kongsa Open the ORCID record for Anupong Kongsa [Opens in a new window] ,
Imjai Chitapanarux Open the ORCID record for Imjai Chitapanarux [Opens in a new window] ,
Anirut Watcharawipha Open the ORCID record for Anirut Watcharawipha [Opens in a new window] ,
Lalita Huntrakul Open the ORCID record for Lalita Huntrakul [Opens in a new window] ,
Warit Thongsuk Open the ORCID record for Warit Thongsuk [Opens in a new window]  and
Pitchayaponne Klunklin Open the ORCID record for Pitchayaponne Klunklin [Opens in a new window]
Anupong Kongsa
Affiliation:
Graduate School, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Imjai Chitapanarux*
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Northern Thai Research Group of Radiation Oncology (NTRG-RO), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Chiang Mai Cancer Registry, Faculty of Medicine, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Anirut Watcharawipha
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Northern Thai Research Group of Radiation Oncology (NTRG-RO), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Lalita Huntrakul
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Warit Thongsuk
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Pitchayaponne Klunklin
Affiliation:
Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Northern Thai Research Group of Radiation Oncology (NTRG-RO), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
*
Author for correspondence: Prof. Imjai Chitapanarux, MD, Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd., Sriphum, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand. Tel: +66-53-935456. Fax: +66-53-935491. E-mails: imjai@cmu.ac.th, imjai@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

To propose a new matching method for the supraclavicular (SC) and tangential fields on three-dimensional radiotherapy (3DRT) for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).

Methods:

A method of matching coplanar field borders (CFB) between the tangential and SC fields was created in 3DRT. The collimator angle of the medial tangential field was calculated to coplanar the SC field. The proposed method performance was ultimately benchmarked using the half beam block (HBB) and traditional three-field monoisocenter (TTM) methods by dosimetric comparison. The decision score was then employed to clarify the performance among these methods.

Results:

The results show that the TTM method exhibited not only low doses on the organs at risk (OAR) but also on the matching fields. The CFB and HBB produced comparable results, but the ipsilateral lung yielded lesser amounts than the HBB. The decision score indicated a low performance level when using the TTM method, whereas the CBF method exhibited a slightly higher performance score than the HBB.

Findings:

The CFB exhibited good performance in terms of the dose on OARs and at the matching fields. This method offers a comparable level of performance to the HBB. Thus, the CFB offers an alternative method of significant interest in PMRT.

Keywords

coplanarhalf beam blockpostmastectomythree-dimensional radiotherapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e8
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sung, H, Ferlay, J, Siegel, RL et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recht, A, Edge, SB, Solin, LJ et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19 (5): 1539–1569. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.5.1539 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yousefi Kashi, AS, Karimi, M, Rakhsha, A, Javadzadegan, A, Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. The Troponin-I release in patients with left-sided early-stage breast cancer undergoing adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy: an Iranian experience. Int J Cancer Manage 2020; 13 (10). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijcm.107043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaei, A, Hashemi, B, Bakhshandeh, M. Comparing the monoisocentric and dual isocentric techniques in chest wall radiotherapy of mastectomy patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16 (1): 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5069 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wadasadawala, T, Lewis, S, Gaikwad, U et al. Mono versus dual isocentric technique for breast cancer radiotherapy: evaluation of planning, dosimetry and treatment delivery. J Radiother Pract 2020: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396920000667 Google Scholar
Romeo, N. A new isocentric technique for exact geometric matching in the radiotherapy of the breast and ipsilateral supraclavicular fossa using dual asymmetric jaws. Phys Med 2012; 28 (4): 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.10.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, T, Dilworth, JT, Marina, O, Chen, P, Benedetti, L, Liu, Q. A three-field monoisocentric inverse breast treatment planning technique without half-beam blocking. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16 (5): 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5494 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Q, Jie, W, Liang, Z, Wu, H, Cheng, J. Postmastectomy intensity modulation radiated therapy of chest wall and regional nodes: Retrospective analysis of the performance and complications up for 5 years. Medicine 2017; 96 (39). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007956 Google ScholarPubMed
Koshy, M, Zhang, B, Naqvi, S, Liu, B, Mohiuddin, MM. A novel technique for post-mastectomy breast irradiation utilising non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy. B J Radiol 2010; 83 (994): 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/59469015 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iorio, GC, Franco, P, Gallio, E, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver nodal irradiation in breast cancer patients. Med Oncol 2018; 35 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-017-1061-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, GP, Fontenot, JD, Gibbons, JP, Sanders, ME. Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy for postmastectomy treatment. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-66 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foroudi, F, Wilson, L, Bressel, M, et al. A dosimetric comparison of 3D conformal vs intensity modulated vs volumetric arc radiation therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7 (1): 1–0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H, Chen, X, He, Z, Li, J. Evaluation of 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT radiotherapy plans for left breast cancer based on clinical dosimetric study. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2016; 54: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2016.10.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haertl, PM, Pohl, F, Weidner, K, Groeger, C, Koelbl, O, Dobler, B. Treatment of left sided breast cancer for a patient with funnel chest: volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Med Dosim 2013; 38 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2012.04.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahmoud, A, Somayeh, N, Mahbod, E, Mehdi, A, Vahid, C, Ghazale, G. Optimization of three dimensional planning dosimetric in breast phantom for match region of supraclavicular and tangential fields. J Cancer Res Ther 2013; 9 (1): 64. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.110376 Google ScholarPubMed
Nalder, CA, Bidmead, AM, Mubata, CD, Tait, D, Beardmore, C. Influence of a vac-fix immobilization device on the accuracy of patient positioning during routine breast radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2001; 74 (879): 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.74.879.740249 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raza, W, Agarwal, S, Das, KJ, Kumar, SK, Lal, P. Comparison of set-up errors by breast size on wing board by portal imaging. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016; 21 (5): 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2016.04.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naing, L, Winn, T, Rusli, BN. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Arch Orofacial Sci 2006; 1: 9–14.Google Scholar
Halperin, E, Perez, C, Brady, L, editors. Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology, 5th edition. Philadelphia: A WALTER KLUWER business: c2008. Chapter 53: Early stage Breast Cancer; pp. 1175–1292.Google Scholar
NRG Oncology. Breast Cancer Atlases, Templates, & Tools. [Internet]. Philadephia: NRG oncology; 2019 [Cited 1 July 2019]. Available from: http://www.nrgoncology.org/Portals/0/Scientific%20Program/CIRO/Atlases/BreastCancerAtlas_corr.pdf?ver=2018-04-18-144201-270 Google Scholar
Nadi, S, Abedi-Firouzjah, R, Banaei, A, Bijari, S, Elahi, M. Dosimetric comparison of level II lymph nodes between mono-isocentric and dual-isocentric approaches in 3D-CRT and IMRT techniques in breast radiotherapy of mastectomy patients. J Radiother Pract 2020; 19 (3): 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S146039691900061X CrossRefGoogle Scholar