Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The advantage of prone setup compared with supine for left-breast radiotherapy is controversial. We evaluate the dosimetric gain of prone setup and aim to identify predictors of the gain.
Methods
Left-sided breast cancer patients who had dual computed tomography (CT) planning in prone free breathing (FB) and supine deep inspiration breath-hold (DiBH) were retrospectively identified. Radiation doses to heart, lungs, breasts, and tumor bed were evaluated using the recently developed mean absolute dose deviation (MADD). MADD measures how widely the dose delivered to a structure deviates from a reference dose specified for the structure. A penalty score was computed for every treatment plan as a weighted sum of the MADDs normalized to the breast prescribed dose. Changes in penalty scores when switching from supine to prone were assessed by paired t-tests and by the number of patients with a reduction of the penalty score (i.e., gain). Robust linear regression and fractional polynomials were used to correlate patients’ characteristics and their respective penalty scores.
Results
Among 116 patients identified with dual CT planning, the prone setup, compared with supine, was associated with a dosimetric gain in 72 (62.1%, 95% CI: 52.6–70.9%). The most significant predictors of a gain with the prone setup were the breast depth prone/supine ratio (>1.6), breast depth difference (>31 mm), prone breast depth (>77 mm), and breast volume (>282 mL).
Conclusion
Prone compared with supine DiBH was associated with a dosimetric gain in 62.1% of our left-sided breast cancer patients. High pendulousness and moderately large breast predicted for the gain.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Oncology,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference69 articles.
1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
2. DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, Jemal A, Siegel RL (2019) Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69(6):438–451. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21583
3. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, Harewood R, Matz M, Niksic M, Bonaventure A, Valkov M, Johnson CJ, Esteve J, Ogunbiyi OJ, Azevedo ESG, Chen WQ, Eser S, Engholm G, Stiller CA, Monnereau A, Woods RR, Visser O, Lim GH, Aitken J, Weir HK, Coleman MP, Group CW (2018) Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet 391(10125):1023–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3
4. Vinh-Hung V, Verschraegen C, The Breast Conserving Surgery Project (2004) Breast-conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy: pooled-analysis for risks of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh246
5. Cuzick J, Stewart H, Peto R, Baum M, Fisher B, Host H, Lythgoe JP, Ribeiro G, Scheurlen H, Wallgren A (1987) Overview of randomized trials of postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 71(1):15–29
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献