15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Low-Dose-Area-Constrained Helical TomoTherapy-Based Whole Breast Radiotherapy and Dosimetric Comparison with Tangential Field-in-Field IMRT

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Purpose. To present a novel helical TomoTherapy-based method for whole breast radiotherapy that has better dosimetry and also has acceptable low-dose regions for lungs, heart, and contralateral breast compared with tangential field-in-field IMRT (FIF-IMRT). Material and Methods. Ten patients with left-side breast cancer were planned with low-dose-area-constrained helical TomoTherapy (LDC-HT) and FIF-IMRT. Dosimetry was compared for all techniques. Results. Coverage of the whole breast was adequate with both techniques. Homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) were better with LDC-HT. LDC-HT showed dosimetry advantages over FIF-IMRT for ipsilateral lung and heart in not only high-dose levels but also in low-dose levels such as V 10 Gy and V 5 Gy. For contralateral lung, both techniques can provide good protection, although the mean dose of LDC-HT is higher than that of FIF-IMRT. Conclusions. With LDC-HT, we obtained adequate target coverage, better HI and CI of target volume, better sparing of organs at risk, and acceptably low-dose areas compared with FIF-IMRT. LDC-HT could be a feasible method in whole breast radiotherapy. Clinical benefits of LDC-HT need further investigation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000.

          Our goal was to provide health-care providers, patients, and the general public with an assessment of currently available data regarding the use of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The participants included a non-Federal, non-advocate, 14-member panel representing the fields of oncology, radiology, surgery, pathology, statistics, public health, and health policy as well as patient representatives. In addition, 30 experts in medical oncology, radiation oncology, biostatistics, epidemiology, surgical oncology, and clinical trials presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of 1000. The literature was searched with the use of MEDLINE(TM) for January 1995 through July 2000, and an extensive bibliography of 2230 references was provided to the panel. Experts prepared abstracts for their conference presentations with relevant citations from the literature. Evidence from randomized clinical trials and evidence from prospective studies were given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. The panel, answering predefined questions, developed its conclusions based on the evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement, which was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. The draft statement was made available on the World Wide Web immediately after its release at the conference and was updated with the panel's final revisions. The statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. The panel concludes that decisions regarding adjuvant hormonal therapy should be based on the presence of hormone receptor protein in tumor tissues. Adjuvant hormonal therapy should be offered only to women whose tumors express hormone receptor protein. Because adjuvant polychemotherapy improves survival, it should be recommended to the majority of women with localized breast cancer regardless of lymph node, menopausal, or hormone receptor status. The inclusion of anthracyclines in adjuvant chemotherapy regimens produces a small but statistically significant improvement in survival over non-anthracycline-containing regimens. Available data are currently inconclusive regarding the use of taxanes in adjuvant treatment of lymph node-positive breast cancer. The use of adjuvant dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens in high-risk breast cancer and of taxanes in lymph node-negative breast cancer should be restricted to randomized trials. Ongoing studies evaluating these treatment strategies should be supported to determine if such strategies have a role in adjuvant treatment. Studies to date have included few patients older than 70 years. There is a critical need for trials to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in these women. There is evidence that women with a high risk of locoregional tumor recurrence after mastectomy benefit from postoperative radiotherapy. This high-risk group includes women with four or more positive lymph nodes or an advanced primary cancer. Currently, the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes remains uncertain and should be tested in a randomized controlled trial. Individual patients differ in the importance they place on the risks and benefits of adjuvant treatments. Quality of life needs to be evaluated in selected randomized clinical trials to examine the impact of the major acute and long-term side effects of adjuvant treatments, particularly premature menopause, weight gain, mild memory loss, and fatigue. Methods to support shared decision-making between patients and their physicians have been successful in trials; they need to be tailored for diverse populations and should be tested for broader dissemination.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3DCRT, forward-planned IMRT, inverse-planned IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and topotherapy.

            To compare left-sided whole breast conventional and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning techniques. Treatment plans were created for 10 consecutive patients. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), forward-planned IMRT (for-IMRT), and inverse-planned IMRT (inv-IMRT) used two tangent beams. For-IMRT utilized up to four segments per beam. For helical tomotherapy (HT) plans, beamlet entrance and/or exit to critical structures was blocked. Topotherapy plans, which used static gantry angles with simultaneous couch translation and inverse-planned intensity modulation, used two tangent beams. Plans were normalized to 50Gy to 95% of the retracted PTV. Target max doses were reduced with for-IMRT compared to 3DCRT, which were further reduced with HT, topotherapy, and inv-IMRT. HT resulted in lowest heart and ipsilateral lung max doses, but had higher mean doses. Inv-IMRT and topotherapy reduced ipsilateral lung mean and max doses compared to 3DCRT and for-IMRT. All modalities evaluated provide adequate coverage of the intact breast. HT, topotherapy, and inv-IMRT can reduce high doses to the target and normal tissues, although HT results in increased low doses to large volume of normal tissue. For-IMRT improves target homogeneity compared with 3DCRT, but to a lesser degree than the inverse-planned modalities. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Second malignancies after breast cancer: the impact of different treatment modalities

              Treatment for non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) may be the cause of second malignancies in long-term survivors. Our aim was to investigate whether survivors present a higher risk of malignancy than the general population according to treatment received. We analysed data for 16 705 BC survivors treated at the Curie Institute (1981–1997) by either chemotherapy (various regimens), radiotherapy (high-energy photons from a 60Co unit or linear accelerator) and/or hormone therapy (2–5 years of tamoxifen). We calculated age-standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for each malignancy, using data for the general French population from five regional registries. At a median follow-up 10.5 years, 709 patients had developed a second malignancy. The greatest increases in risk were for leukaemia (SIR: 2.07 (1.52–2.75)), ovarian cancer (SIR: 1.6 (1.27–2.04)) and gynaecological (cervical/endometrial) cancer (SIR: 1.6 (1.34–1.89); P<0.0001). The SIR for gastrointestinal cancer, the most common malignancy, was 0.82 (0.70–0.95; P<0.007). The increase in leukaemia was most strongly related to chemotherapy and that in gynaecological cancers to hormone therapy. Radiotherapy alone also had a significant, although lesser, effect on leukaemia and gynaecological cancer incidence. The increased risk of sarcomas and lung cancer was attributed to radiotherapy. No increased risk was observed for malignant melanoma, lymphoma, genitourinary, thyroid or head and neck cancer. There is a significantly increased risk of several kinds of second malignancy in women treated for BC, compared with the general population. This increase may be related to adjuvant treatment in some cases. However, the absolute risk is small.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2013
                14 August 2013
                : 2013
                : 513708
                Affiliations
                Peking Union Medical College Hospital, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100730, China
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: An Liu

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5576-2318
                Article
                10.1155/2013/513708
                3759257
                24024197
                5cfd9781-e2e5-45c7-8307-0905832e9f8f
                Copyright © 2013 Jie Qiu et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 June 2013
                : 11 July 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article