Dosimetric comparison between two different intensity modulated radiation therapy and 3D-conformal radiation therapy planning techniques for carcinoma of breast following conservative surgery

Michelle D’almeida, Jyothi Nagesh, Ramya Balasubramanian, Srinidhi Gururajarao Chandraguthi, Sarath S. Nair, Shreekripa, Krishna Sharan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: The anatomy of the chest wall is curved which makes it quite complicated to plan radiation therapy for breast cancer. There are different techniques for delivering external beam radiation therapy. Therefore, it is essential to know the technique by which we can render a better treatment. Aim: To compare and analyse three different planning techniques namely Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT), two field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and multiple field IMRT using dosimetric parameters. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective dosimetric study, we evaluated 10 breast cancer patients. For each patient, three plans namely 3DCRT, two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT (7 beams) were generated on the computed tomographic images using Oncentra Treatment Planning system. A dose of 50Gy in 25 fractions was prescribed to the Planning Target Volume (PTV). The plans were compared with each other on volume coverage (conformity and homogeneity) and organ-at-risk sparing. Paired t-test was used for identifying statistical differences between the plans. A significance level, p=5% or 0.05 was chosen. Results: The dose conformity was best by multiple field IMRT (p=0.0001). Both two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT provided more homogenous dose distribution with homogeneity index of 1.09±0.01 and 1.08±0.01 respectively when compared to 1.11±0.01 by 3DCRT (p=0.001 and 0.0001, respectively). D2 (dose received by 2% of the tumour volume), a measure of maximum dose was greater in 3DCRT. While dose to the critical organs was considerably less in both two field IMRT and 3DCRT than in multiple field IMRT, two field IMRT achieved lowest doses. Moreover, there was a substantial increase in the Monitor Units (MUs) for multiple field IMRT when compared with the other two techniques. Conclusion: Two field IMRT have the features intermediate of 3DCRT and multiple field IMRT. The two field IMRT is on the beneficial side with homogenous dose distribution in the target and less dose to the critical organs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)XC01-XC04
JournalJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Volume12
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-10-2018

Fingerprint

Planning Techniques
Radiotherapy
Surgery
Breast Neoplasms
Planning
Dosimetry
Organs at Risk

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Biochemistry

Cite this

@article{df93286fd31a45a59425669e291856c6,
title = "Dosimetric comparison between two different intensity modulated radiation therapy and 3D-conformal radiation therapy planning techniques for carcinoma of breast following conservative surgery",
abstract = "Introduction: The anatomy of the chest wall is curved which makes it quite complicated to plan radiation therapy for breast cancer. There are different techniques for delivering external beam radiation therapy. Therefore, it is essential to know the technique by which we can render a better treatment. Aim: To compare and analyse three different planning techniques namely Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT), two field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and multiple field IMRT using dosimetric parameters. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective dosimetric study, we evaluated 10 breast cancer patients. For each patient, three plans namely 3DCRT, two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT (7 beams) were generated on the computed tomographic images using Oncentra Treatment Planning system. A dose of 50Gy in 25 fractions was prescribed to the Planning Target Volume (PTV). The plans were compared with each other on volume coverage (conformity and homogeneity) and organ-at-risk sparing. Paired t-test was used for identifying statistical differences between the plans. A significance level, p=5{\%} or 0.05 was chosen. Results: The dose conformity was best by multiple field IMRT (p=0.0001). Both two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT provided more homogenous dose distribution with homogeneity index of 1.09±0.01 and 1.08±0.01 respectively when compared to 1.11±0.01 by 3DCRT (p=0.001 and 0.0001, respectively). D2 (dose received by 2{\%} of the tumour volume), a measure of maximum dose was greater in 3DCRT. While dose to the critical organs was considerably less in both two field IMRT and 3DCRT than in multiple field IMRT, two field IMRT achieved lowest doses. Moreover, there was a substantial increase in the Monitor Units (MUs) for multiple field IMRT when compared with the other two techniques. Conclusion: Two field IMRT have the features intermediate of 3DCRT and multiple field IMRT. The two field IMRT is on the beneficial side with homogenous dose distribution in the target and less dose to the critical organs.",
author = "Michelle D’almeida and Jyothi Nagesh and Ramya Balasubramanian and Chandraguthi, {Srinidhi Gururajarao} and Nair, {Sarath S.} and Shreekripa and Krishna Sharan",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7860/JCDR/2018/31495.12073",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "XC01--XC04",
journal = "Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research",
issn = "2249-782X",
publisher = "Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research",
number = "10",

}

Dosimetric comparison between two different intensity modulated radiation therapy and 3D-conformal radiation therapy planning techniques for carcinoma of breast following conservative surgery. / D’almeida, Michelle; Nagesh, Jyothi; Balasubramanian, Ramya; Chandraguthi, Srinidhi Gururajarao; Nair, Sarath S.; Shreekripa; Sharan, Krishna.

In: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, Vol. 12, No. 10, 01.10.2018, p. XC01-XC04.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dosimetric comparison between two different intensity modulated radiation therapy and 3D-conformal radiation therapy planning techniques for carcinoma of breast following conservative surgery

AU - D’almeida, Michelle

AU - Nagesh, Jyothi

AU - Balasubramanian, Ramya

AU - Chandraguthi, Srinidhi Gururajarao

AU - Nair, Sarath S.

AU - Shreekripa,

AU - Sharan, Krishna

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Introduction: The anatomy of the chest wall is curved which makes it quite complicated to plan radiation therapy for breast cancer. There are different techniques for delivering external beam radiation therapy. Therefore, it is essential to know the technique by which we can render a better treatment. Aim: To compare and analyse three different planning techniques namely Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT), two field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and multiple field IMRT using dosimetric parameters. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective dosimetric study, we evaluated 10 breast cancer patients. For each patient, three plans namely 3DCRT, two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT (7 beams) were generated on the computed tomographic images using Oncentra Treatment Planning system. A dose of 50Gy in 25 fractions was prescribed to the Planning Target Volume (PTV). The plans were compared with each other on volume coverage (conformity and homogeneity) and organ-at-risk sparing. Paired t-test was used for identifying statistical differences between the plans. A significance level, p=5% or 0.05 was chosen. Results: The dose conformity was best by multiple field IMRT (p=0.0001). Both two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT provided more homogenous dose distribution with homogeneity index of 1.09±0.01 and 1.08±0.01 respectively when compared to 1.11±0.01 by 3DCRT (p=0.001 and 0.0001, respectively). D2 (dose received by 2% of the tumour volume), a measure of maximum dose was greater in 3DCRT. While dose to the critical organs was considerably less in both two field IMRT and 3DCRT than in multiple field IMRT, two field IMRT achieved lowest doses. Moreover, there was a substantial increase in the Monitor Units (MUs) for multiple field IMRT when compared with the other two techniques. Conclusion: Two field IMRT have the features intermediate of 3DCRT and multiple field IMRT. The two field IMRT is on the beneficial side with homogenous dose distribution in the target and less dose to the critical organs.

AB - Introduction: The anatomy of the chest wall is curved which makes it quite complicated to plan radiation therapy for breast cancer. There are different techniques for delivering external beam radiation therapy. Therefore, it is essential to know the technique by which we can render a better treatment. Aim: To compare and analyse three different planning techniques namely Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT), two field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and multiple field IMRT using dosimetric parameters. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective dosimetric study, we evaluated 10 breast cancer patients. For each patient, three plans namely 3DCRT, two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT (7 beams) were generated on the computed tomographic images using Oncentra Treatment Planning system. A dose of 50Gy in 25 fractions was prescribed to the Planning Target Volume (PTV). The plans were compared with each other on volume coverage (conformity and homogeneity) and organ-at-risk sparing. Paired t-test was used for identifying statistical differences between the plans. A significance level, p=5% or 0.05 was chosen. Results: The dose conformity was best by multiple field IMRT (p=0.0001). Both two field IMRT and multiple field IMRT provided more homogenous dose distribution with homogeneity index of 1.09±0.01 and 1.08±0.01 respectively when compared to 1.11±0.01 by 3DCRT (p=0.001 and 0.0001, respectively). D2 (dose received by 2% of the tumour volume), a measure of maximum dose was greater in 3DCRT. While dose to the critical organs was considerably less in both two field IMRT and 3DCRT than in multiple field IMRT, two field IMRT achieved lowest doses. Moreover, there was a substantial increase in the Monitor Units (MUs) for multiple field IMRT when compared with the other two techniques. Conclusion: Two field IMRT have the features intermediate of 3DCRT and multiple field IMRT. The two field IMRT is on the beneficial side with homogenous dose distribution in the target and less dose to the critical organs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053157862&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053157862&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7860/JCDR/2018/31495.12073

DO - 10.7860/JCDR/2018/31495.12073

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - XC01-XC04

JO - Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research

JF - Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research

SN - 2249-782X

IS - 10

ER -