Can the Choice of Radiotherapy Delivery Technique Influence Which Target Delineation Protocol to Use? A Plan-Quality-Based Analysis in Left Breast Cancer

Author:

Ahmad Irfan1ORCID,Chufal Kundan Singh1,Bhatt Chandi Prasad2ORCID,Miller Alexis Andrew3ORCID,Bajpai Ram4ORCID,Chowdhary Rahul Lal1,Pahuja Anjali Kakria1,Chhabra Akanksha1,Gairola Munish1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi, India

2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarvodaya Hospital and Research Centre, Faridabad, Haryana, India

3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Illawarra Cancer Care Centre, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

4. School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Abstract

Abstract Introduction This study investigates the optimal target delineation protocol stratified by treatment planning technique in patients undergoing whole breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery. Materials and Methods Target delineation using Tangent (RTOG 0413 Whole Breast Irradiation Protocol), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and Radiation Therapy & Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines was performed on 10 randomly selected treatment planning computed tomography datasets of patients with left-sided breast cancer. An objective plan quality metric (PQM) scoring schema was defined and communicated to the medical physicist prior to commencement of treatment planning. Treatment planning was performed using field-in-field (FiF) intensity modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT), inverse IMRT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for each type of target. Two-way repeated measures, analysis of variance was utilized to compare the total PQM scores and dosimetric variables, stratified by treatment planning method. Results Total PQM score of plans for FiF, IMRT, and VMAT revealed that Tangent and ESTRO delineations were equivalent regardless of planning technique (Tangent vs. ESTRO for FiF, p = 0.099; Tangent vs. ESTRO for IMRT, p = 0.029; Tangent vs. ESTRO for VMAT, p = 0.438). Both delineation protocols were significantly superior to RTOG for all treatment planning techniques. Conclusion For all treatment planning techniques, ESTRO and Tangent delineation were equivalent and both achieved significantly higher scores than RTOG delineation.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3