ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To show the usefulness of topographic 2D megavoltage images (MV2D) for the localization of breast cancer patients treated with TomoDirect (TD), a radiotherapy treatment technique with fixed-angle beams performed on a TomoTherapy system. METHODS: A method was developed to quickly localize breast cancer patients treated with TD by registering the MV2D images produced before a TD treatment with reference images reconstructed from a kilovoltage CT simulation scanner and by using the projection of the beam-eye-view TD treatment field. Dose and image quality measurements were performed to determine the optimal parameters for acquiring MV2D images. A TD treatment was simulated on a chest phantom equipped with a breast attachment. MVCT and MV2D images were performed for 7 different shifted positions of the phantom and registered by 10 different operators with the simulation kilovoltage CT images. RESULTS: Compared to MVCT, MV2D imaging reduces the dose by a factor of up to 45 and the acquisition time by a factor of up to 49. Comparing the registration shift values obtained for the phantom images obtained with MVCT in the coarse mode to those obtained with MV2D, the mean difference is 1.0±1.1mm, -1.1mm±1.1, and -0.1±2.2mm, respectively, in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions. CONCLUSIONS: With dual advantages (very fast imaging and a potentially reduced dose to the heart and contralateral organs), MV2D topographic images may be an attractive alternative to MVCT for the localization of breast cancer patients treated with TomoDirect.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted , Radiotherapy, Conformal , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Phantoms, Imaging , ThoraxABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: TomoDirect (TD) can only operate in free-breathing. The purpose of this study is to compare TD with breath-hold 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques for left breast treatments, and to determine if the lack of respiratory gating is a handicap for cardiac sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 patients treated for left breast had two computed tomography simulation, in free breathing (FB) and in deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). Four treatments were planned: TD-FB, 3DCRT-FB, 3DCRT-DIBH and IMRT-DIBH. Dose to PTV, heart, lungs, right breast and patient were compared. RESULTS: A slightly lower cardiac mean dose is found for 3DCRT-DIBH than for TD-FB group (1.99Gy Vs 2.89Gy, p=0.0462), while no statistical difference is found for heart V20. TD-FB plans show the best PTV dose homogeneity (0.053, p<0.001) and the lowest left lung mean dose (5.16Gy, p<0.001). No major differences are found for the other organs. CONCLUSIONS: TomoDirect and breath-hold 3DCRT are complementary techniques for left breast treatments: for a minority of patients, respiratory gating is mandatory to lower cardiac dose; for the remaining majority of patients, TomoDirect achieves better PTV homogeneity and reduced left lung dose, with cardiac dose equivalent to 3DCRT-DIBH.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast/radiation effects , Breath Holding , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods , Lung/radiation effects , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Respiration , Breast/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods , Middle Aged , Organs at Risk , Patient Positioning , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted , Tissue DistributionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the optimum combination of treatment parameters between pitch, field width (FW) and modulation factor (MF) for extremity sarcomas in tomotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients previously treated for extremity sarcomas (3 arms and 3 legs) with tomotherapy were included in this study. 288 treatment plans were recalculated, corresponding to all combinations between 2 FW (2.5 and 5 cm), 4 MF (1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3) and 6 pitches (0.215, 0.287, 0.43 and 3 off-axis pitches). The treatment parameters (MF, FW or pitch) are modified between each plan, and the calculation is relaunched for 400 iterations, without modifying the optimisation constraints of the plan under which the patient has been treated. RESULTS: We suggest eliminating the 0.43 pitch and never combining a 0.215 pitch with an MF ≤ 2. We also do not recommend using an MF = 1.5 unless treatment time is an absolute priority over plan quality. We did not see any advantage in using Chen off-axis pitches, except for targets far from the axis (>15 cm) treated with a high pitch. A combination of MF = 2/FW = 5 cm/pitch = 0.287 gives plans of acceptable quality, combined with reduced treatment times. These conclusions are true only for extremity sarcomas treated in 2 Gy/fraction. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that the choice of pitch/MF/FW combination is crucial for the treatment of extremity sarcomas in tomotherapy: some produce good dosimetric quality with a reduced irradiation time, while others may increase the time without improving the quality.
