Is the lack of respiratory gating prejudicial for left breast TomoDirect treatments?

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.

The optimal tomotherapy treatment planning parameters for extremity soft tissue sarcomas.

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.