Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:59:57.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Skin dose assessment with treatment planning system (TPS) and skin reaction evaluation of early breast cancer patients treated via an intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) device

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2018

Omid Baziar ,
Hamid Gholamhosseinian  and
Mohammad Naser Forghani
Omid Baziar
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Hamid Gholamhosseinian*
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Mohammad Naser Forghani
Affiliation:
Department of General Surgery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Hamid Gholamhosseinian, Medical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Tel: +9891 5306 6188. E-mail: gholamhosseinianh@mums.ac.ir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

To assess skin dose and incidence of skin reactions in early breast cancer patients treated via Intrabeam™ intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) device.

Materials and methods

In total, 250 breast cancer patients treated with a single fraction of 20 Gy using 50 kV photon were recruited. The applicator to skin distance (ASD) was measured before the initiation of the radiation and the skin dose in each patient was accordingly calculated based on the treatment planning system (TPS).

Results

The average skin doses calculated were equal to 7·91, 5·83, 3·96 and 2·14 Gy for 6–10, 10–15, 15–20 and 20–30 mm ASD values, respectively. It is noticeable that the skin doses could be lower than the TPS measurements up to 45%, mostly due to lack of backscatter radiation in breast tissue compared with the full scatter condition in the Zeiss water phantom. Finally, only three patients showed low-grade skin reactions 1 week after IORT. A review of the related literature also revealed the incidence of lower skin complications among patients treated via Intrabeam™ compared with MammoSite™ machine.

Conclusions

The Intrabeam™ TPS did not seem to be very reliable for accurate skin dosimetry. However, breast cancer treatment using Intrabeam™ could result in fewer incidences of skin reactions than MammoSite™ machine.

Keywords

breast cancer treatmentIntrabeam™ deviceMammoSite™ machineskin reactiontreatment planning system (TPS) dosimetry
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 417 - 421
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

1. Njeh, C F, Saunders, M W, Langton, C M. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI): a review of available techniques. Radiat Oncol 2010; 5 (1): 90.Google Scholar
2. Arthur, D W, Vicini, F A. Accelerated partial breast irradiation as a part of breast conservation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23 (8): 1726–1735.Google Scholar
3. Vaidya, J S. Partial breast irradiation using targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit). Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007; 4 (7): 384–385.Google Scholar
4. Shah, S, Holzwanger, E, Khwaja, R et al. A single-site retrospective, non-randomized study of accelerated partial breast irradiation brachytherapy for early-stage breast cancer treatment to evaluate local tumor control, cosmetic outcome, and toxicities. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2016; 15 (5): 645–650.Google Scholar
5. Bartelink, H, Horiot, J-C, Poortmans, P M et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. Jo Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (22): 3259–3265.Google Scholar
6. Gunderson, L L, Willett, C G, Calvo, F A, Harrison, L B. Intraoperative Irradiation: Techniques and Results. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2011: 87–88.Google Scholar
7. Keshtgar, M, Pigott, K, Wenz, F. Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy in Oncology. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.Google Scholar
8. Vaidya, J S, Baum, M, Tobias, J S, Morgan, S, D’Souza, D. The novel technique of delivering targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit) for early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002; 28 (4): 447–454.Google Scholar
9. Hensley, F W. Present state and issues in IORT Physics. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12 (1): 37.Google Scholar
10. Schneider, F, Greineck, F, Clausen, S et al. Development of a novel method for intraoperative radiotherapy during kyphoplasty for spinal metastases (Kypho-IORT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81 (4): 1114–1119.Google Scholar
11. Schneider, F, Fuchs, H, Lorenz, F et al. A novel device for intravaginal electronic brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74 (4): 1298–1305.Google Scholar
12. Park, C C, Yom, S S, Podgorsak, M B et al. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) emerging technology committee report on electronic brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (4): 963–972.Google Scholar
13. Porock, D, Kristjanson, L. Skin reactions during radiotherapy for breast cancer: the use and impact of topical agents and dressings. Eur J Cancer Care 1999; 8 (3): 143–153.Google Scholar
14. Warnock, C, Lee, N. Skin reactions from radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs Pract 2014; 13 (9): 16–22.Google Scholar
15. Kim, J, Hill, R, Mackonis, E C, Kuncic, Z. An investigation of backscatter factors for kilovoltage x-rays: a comparison between Monte Carlo simulations and Gafchromic EBT film measurements. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55 (3): 783–797.Google Scholar
16. Shimizu K, Koshida K, Miyati T (eds) Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis of Backscatter Factor for Low-Energy X-Ray. KEK PROCEEDINGS, Kanazawa, 2001: High Energy Accelerator Research Organization; 1999.Google Scholar
17. Ebert, MA, Carruthers, B. Dosimetric characteristics of a low-kV intra-operative x-ray source: Implications for use in a clinical trial for treatment of low-risk breast cancer. Med Phys 2003; 30 (9): 2424–2431.Google Scholar
18. Eaton, D J. Quality assurance and independent dosimetry for an intraoperative x-ray device. Med Phys 2012; 39 (11): 6908–6920.Google Scholar
19. Hubbell, J H, Seltzer, S M. Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z=1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. National Institute of Standards and Technology-PL, Gaithersburg, MD (United States). Ionizing Radiation Div.; 1995.Google Scholar
20. Lee, J J B, Choi, J, Ahn, S G et al. In vivo dosimetry and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients undergoing intraoperative radiotherapy as boost. Radiat Oncol J 2017; 35 (2): 121–128.Google Scholar
21. Eaton, D J, Best, B, Brew-Graves, C et al. In vivo dosimetry for single-fraction targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (5): e819–e824.Google Scholar
22. Fogg, P, Das, K, Kron, T, Fox, C, Chua, B, Hagekyriakou, J. Thermoluminescence dosimetry for skin dose assessment during intraoperative radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2010; 33 (2): 211–214.Google Scholar
23. Vicini, FA, Beitsch, P D, Quiet, C A et al. First analysis of patient demographics, technical reproducibility, cosmesis, and early toxicity. Cancer 2005; 104 (6): 1138–1148.Google Scholar
24. Sadeghi, A, Prestidge, B, Lee, J-M, Rosenthal, A. Evaluation of the surface radiation dose and dose gradient in early stage breast cancer using high-dose-rate brachytherapy MammoSite™ applicator. Brachytherapy 2006; 5 (4): 230–234.Google Scholar
25. Cuttino, L W, Keisch, M, Jenrette, J M et al. Multi-institutional experience using the MammoSite™ radiation therapy system in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer: 2-year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71 (1): 107–114.Google Scholar
26. Patel, P S, Yan, W, Trichter, S et al. Seroma is an expected consequence and not a complication of MammoSite brachytherapy. Breast J 2011; 17 (5): 498–502.Google Scholar
27. Team AHW. AverageHeight.co USA: AverageHeight Website Team; 2017. http://www.averageheight.co/breast-cup-size-by-country. Accessed in November 2017.Google Scholar
28. Anderson, J D L, Chandler, S C, Mason, M A B et al. Scientific analysis reveals major differences in the breast size of women in different countries. J Female Health Sci 2013; 25: 268–292.Google Scholar
29. Average breast size worldwide 2018. https://www.worlddata.info/average-breastsize.php. Accessed in April 2018.Google Scholar
30. Ebert, M, Carruthers, B, Lanzon, P et al. Dosimetry of a low-kV intra-operative X-ray source using basic analytical beam models. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2002; 25 (3): 119–123.Google Scholar