Biological Indices Evaluation of Various Treatment Techniques for Left-Sided Breast Treatment.

PURPOSE: To compare dose to organs at risk (OARs) and biological evaluation using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for left-sided breast radiation therapy in 4 techniques: supine free breathing (SFB), supine deep inspiration breath hold (SDIBH), prone free breathing (PFB), and prone deep inspiration breath hold (PDIBH). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five patients with left-sided breast cancer suitable for this study underwent a computed tomography scan using SFB, SDIBH, PFB, and PDIBH. One radiation oncologist contoured the planning target volume and OAR (cardiac components). Dose-volume histograms and NTCPs for the heart, left ventricle (LV), left anterior descending artery (LAD), and left lung were calculated for all 4 techniques. RESULTS: The mean heart dose in PDIBH is 0.77 Gy, which is statistically significantly lower than in SFB (1.88 Gy, P < .0001), SDIBH (0.97 Gy, P < .001), and PFB (0.85 Gy, P < .001). The mean left lung dose is 0.69 Gy in PFB and 0.88 Gy in PDIBH. PFB and PDIBH have statistically significantly lower doses compared with SFB (6.09 Gy, P < .0001) and SDIBH (5.41 Gy, P < .0001). The mean NTCP in SFB for the heart, LV, and LAD is 0.27%, 0.62%, and 4.23%, respectively, and it is negligible for other techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We found that PDIBH had a dosimetrically lower mean dose for the heart and LV compared with the other 3 techniques. In addition, SDIBH, PFB and PDIBH had statistically significantly lower NTCP for the heart, LV, and LAD compared with SFB. NTCP for the left lung was statistically significantly lower for prone techniques compared with supine techniques. Therefore we concluded that, compared with SDIBH, PDIBH provides the added benefit of sparing the heart while keeping the benefit of sparing the lung as in the prone technique.

Evaluation of sparing organs at risk (OARs) in left-breast irradiation in the supine and prone positions and with deep inspiration breath-hold.

PURPOSE: To compare doses to organs at risk (OARs) for left-sided whole-breast radiation therapy with comparable planning target volume (PTV) coverage using three techniques: free breathing in a supine position (SFB), deep inspirational breath-hold in a supine position (SDIBH), and free breathing in prone position (PFB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients with left-sided early-stage breast cancer underwent CT simulation following SFB, SDIBH, and PFB protocols for whole-breast radiation therapy. One radiation oncologist contoured the breast PTV, heart, left ventricle (LV), and left anterior descending artery (LAD). Treatment plans were optimized using field-in-field technique with the AAA algorithm. Each plan was optimized to provide identical coverage to the PTV such that a reasonable comparison for OAR dosimetry could be evaluated. All plans were prescribed 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions to the left-breast PTV. RESULTS: The mean dose in SFB for the heart, LV, and LAD was 1.92, 3.19, and 21.73 Gy, respectively, which were significantly higher than the mean dose in SDIBH for the heart (1.08 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), LV (1.50 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), and LAD (6.3 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001) and in PFB for the heart (0.98 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), LV (1.34 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), and LAD (6.57 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001). Similar findings were noted for the cardiac components in SFB for V2.5, V5, V10, V20, and V30 compared with values in SDIBH and PFB. The mean dose for the left lung in PFB was 0.61 Gy that was significantly lower than in SFB (5.63 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001) and SDIBH (5.54 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001). Mean dose and dosimetric values for each OAR increased in SFB and SDIBH for patients with a large breast volume compared with values for patients with a small breast volume. CONCLUSIONS: SFB results in higher heart, LAD, and LV doses than the other techniques. Both PFB and SDIBH are more advantageous for these OARs irrespective of breast volume. PFB results in significantly lower lung doses than SFB and SDIBH. PFB always provided better results than SFB for the heart, LV, LAD, and lung. This conclusion contrasts with some published studies concluding that the prone position has no benefit for heart sparing.