Evaluation of superficial dosimetry between treatment planning system and measurement for several breast cancer treatment techniques

During radiation therapy of the female breast, the actual target volume compared to the planning target volume may change due to swelling or shrinking of the tissue. Under‐ or overdosage is to be expected, especially when performing IMRT or tomotherapy techniques. The objective of this study is to develop a model‐based quantification of these dose effects, with a particular focus on the changes in the surface dose. A cylindrical phantom was used as an artificial surrogate of the human torso. By adding and removing Superflab layers of various thicknesses, both radial breast swelling and shrinking could be simulated. The effects on dose distribution were evaluated using film dosimetry. The results were compared to dose calculations. To estimate the true surface doses, we subtracted the influence of the film material on air measurements. During a swelling of 5, 10, and 15 mm, the planning target volume was consistently underdosed by 2%, 5%, and 7% of the prescribed dose, respectively. Swelling led to reduced dose values of up to 72%, 55%, and 50% at the outer edge of the actual target volume. The measured surface dose decreased successively from 31% to 23%. During shrinking, the dose in the planning target volume increased successively from 100% to 106%. The measured surface doses increased from 29% to 36%. The calculated dose values agreed with the measured values within error limits. During radiotherapy of the female breast, new planning appears to be essential for radial tissue swelling of 5 mm or more because of severe underdosing. Shrinking leads to moderate overdosing and an increased surface dose. In addition, caution is advised when removing bolus material with respect to the planned situation.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.dk, 87.55.D‐

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Dosimetric effects of swelling or shrinking tissue during helical tomotherapy breast irradiation. A phantom study

Klepper¹,

Höfel²,

Botha³

et al. 2014

“…Moreover, differences may be explained by the uncertainties of calculation in the first mm. Indeed, TPS with collapsed cone algorithms, do not provide accurate dosimetry in the first millimeters 26, 27, 28. As stated in the AAPM TG 176 report, the depth of the sensitive basal layer ranges from 0.05 to 0.4 mm deep 29, 30.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and benefit of using a virtual bolus during treatment planning for breast cancer treated with arc therapy

Tyran

Tallet

Resbeut

et al. 2018

PurposeThis study evaluates the benefit of a virtual bolus method for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan optimization to compensate breast modifications that may occur during breast treatment.MethodsTen files were replanned with VMAT giving 50 Gy to the breast and 47 Gy to the nodes within 25 fractions. The planning process used a virtual bolus for the first optimization, then the monitors units were reoptimized without bolus, after fixing the segments shapes. Structures and treatment planning were exported on a second scanner (CT) performed during treatment as a consequence to modifications in patient's anatomy. The comparative end‐point was clinical target volume's coverage. The first analysis compared the VMAT plans made using the virtual bolus method (VB‐VMAT) to the plans without using it (NoVB‐VMAT) on the first simulation CT. Then, the same analysis was performed on the second CT. Finally, the level of degradation of target volume coverage between the two CT using VB‐VMAT was compared to results using a standard technique of forward‐planned multisegment technique (Tan‐IMRT).ResultsUsing a virtual bolus for VMAT does not degrade dosimetric results on the first CT. No significant result in favor of the NoVB‐VMAT plans was noted. The VB‐VMAT method led to significant better dose distribution on a second CT with modified anatomies compared to NoVB‐VMAT. The clinical target volume's coverage by 95% (V95%) of the prescribed dose was 98.9% [96.1–99.6] on the second CT for VB‐VMAT compared to 92.6% [85.2–97.7] for NoVB‐VMAT (P = 0.0002). The degradation of the target volume coverage for VB‐VMAT is not worse than for Tan‐IMRT: the median differential of V95% between the two CT was 0.9% for VMAT and 0.7% for Tan‐IMRT (P = 1).ConclusionThis study confirms the safety and benefit of using a virtual bolus during the VMAT planning process to compensate potential breast shape modifications.

“…This is to be expected because AXB handles interfaces and inhomogeneities more accurately than AAA 13, 24. AAA has been shown to be agree more closely with MC calculations than older algorithms,25 though AAA is not sufficiently accurate for performing superficial dosimetry 26. Superficial dose is not commonly assessed using an evaluation volume; however, we have found that upon implementation of AXB for breast, physicians, and dosimetrists can expect to see higher overall superficial doses than when using AAA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis

Guebert

Conroy

Weppler

et al. 2018

PurposeTwo dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse‐based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation.MethodsLocoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMCCTV) nodes were covered by 80% of the breast dose. AXB, both dose‐to‐water and dose‐to‐medium reporting, was used to recalculate plans while maintaining constant monitor units. Target coverage and organ‐at‐risk doses were compared between the two algorithms using dose–volume parameters. An analysis to assess location‐specific changes was performed by dividing the breast into nine subvolumes in the superior–inferior and left–right directions.ResultsThere were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breastCTV V 95%, was <2.5%. For IMCCTV, the median differences V 95%, and V 80% were <5% and 0%, respectively; indicating IMCCTV coverage only decreased when marginally covered. Mean superficial dose increased by a median of 3.2 Gy. In the subvolume analysis, the medial subvolumes were “hotter” when recalculated with AXB and the lateral subvolumes “cooler” with AXB; however, all differences were within 2 Gy.ConclusionWe observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.