Quantifying the effect of intrafraction motion during breast IMRT planning and dose delivery

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.

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

“…( 13 ) Dose homogeneity in the breast has been shown to decrease with organ motion due to respiration. ( 14 , 15 ) In the specific case of breast cancer patients, the external surrogate motion should be directly related to tumor motion; however, this is not necessarily the case for other tumor locations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External respiratory motion analysis and statistics for patients and volunteers

Quirk

Becker

Smith

2013

We analyzed a large patient and volunteer study of external respiratory motion in order to develop a population database of respiratory information. We analyzed 120 lung, liver, and abdominal patients and 25 volunteers without lung disease to determine the extent of motion using the Varian Real‐Time Position Management system. The volunteer respiratory motion was measured for both abdominal and thoracic placement of the RPM box. Evaluation of a subset of 55 patients demonstrates inter‐ and intrafraction variation over treatment. We also calculated baseline drift and duty cycle for patients and volunteers. The mean peak‐to‐peak amplitude (SD) for the patients was 1.0 (0.5) cm, and for the volunteers it was abdomen 0.8 (0.3) cm and thoracic 0.2 (0.2) cm. The mean period (SD) was 3.6 (1.0) s, 4.2 (1.1) s, and 4.1 (0.8) s, and the mean end exhale position (SD) was 60% (6), 58% (7), and 56% (7) for patient, volunteer abdomen, and volunteer thoracic, respectively. Baseline drift was greater than 0.5 cm for 40% of patients. We found statistically significant differences between the patient and volunteer groups. Peak‐to‐peak amplitude was significantly larger for patients than the volunteer abdominal measurement and the volunteer abdominal measurement is significantly larger than the volunteer thoracic measurement. The patient group also exhibited significantly larger baseline drift than the volunteer group. We also found that peak‐to‐peak amplitude was the most variable parameter for both intra‐ and interfraction motion. This database compilation can be used as a resource for expected motion when using external surrogates in radiotherapy applications.PACS number: 87.19.Wx, 87.55.Km

“…Respiratory motion presents two potential challenges for inverse planned dynamic fields used in breast radiotherapy18; ensuring coverage on the patient external edge with motion, and the minimization of interplay effects. Coverage on the patient external was ensured in this case using the RayStation robust optimization feature,19 but can equally well be dealt with using virtual bolus 20.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interplay is generally not considered an issue if the motion is less than 1 cm21 and many fractions are used 22. Both of these conditions are met in conventionally fractioned breast treatments 18, 23, 24…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of semiautomated tangential VMAT with 3DCRT for breast or chest wall and regional nodes

Byrne

Archibald-Heeren

et al. 2018

Radiotherapy to the breast after surgery sometimes requires adjoining nodes to be included in the treatment volume. In these cases, the traditional approach has been a complex 3‐Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT) beam arrangement which can result in significant dose heterogeneity at the beam junctions. A Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) beam arrangement has previously been proposed for breast cases, where the chest wall/breast is treated with a limited angle (partial arc) tangential VMAT technique (Virén et al. [2015] Radiat Oncol. 10:79). In our study, this approach is extended to breast and chest wall cases with adjoining nodes by adding a separate conventional VMAT arc field specifically limited to the superior nodes. This VMAT method was implemented using a semiautomated approach on 27 patients, and the resultant plan compared to a monoisocentric 3DCRT plan. Plan statistics, Dose‐Volume Histogram (DVH) analysis and Radiation Oncologist (RO) preference were assessed. When compared to the 3DCRT technique, the VMAT planning method was found to result in better target volume coverage, high doses to organs at risk (OAR) were reduced but greater OAR volumes received low doses. Having said that, the volume receiving low doses with this tangential VMAT technique was less than that of other VMAT planning methods described in the literature, and the integral dose was less than the 3DCRT method. The VMAT technique also resulted in more robust junction doses that the 3DCRT method. RO review found that the VMAT technique was preferred in 81% of cases. Specifically, the VMAT plans were preferred in all categories of patients except left chest wall cases where the intermammary nodes were also treated. The VMAT technique described here is a useful addition to the treatment options available for breast/chest wall and nodal patients.