Hypofractionated radiotherapy with simultaneous-integrated boost after breast-conserving surgery compared to standard boost-applications using helical tomotherapy with TomoEdge
Background/Aim: This comparative plan study examines a range of boost-radiation methods in adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer using helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy with TomoEdge-technique. Impact of hypofractionated radiation with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) and influence of dif...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
April 3, 2021
|
| In: |
Anticancer research
Year: 2021, Volume: 41, Issue: 4, Pages: 1909-1920 |
| ISSN: | 1791-7530 |
| DOI: | 10.21873/anticanres.14957 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14957 Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/41/4/1909 
|
| Author Notes: | Felix Zwicker, Sebastian Hoefel, Corinna Kirchner, Peter E. Huber, Juergen Debus and Michael Schempp |
| Summary: | Background/Aim: This comparative plan study examines a range of boost-radiation methods in adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer using helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy with TomoEdge-technique. Impact of hypofractionated radiation with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) and influence of differing assumed α/β-values were examined. Patients and Methods: For 10 patients with left-sided breast cancer each four helical IMRT-plans with TomoEdge-technique were created: hypofractionated+SIB (H-SIB) (42.4/54.4 Gy, 16 fractions), normofractionated+SIB (N-SIB) (50.4/64.4 Gy, 28 fractions), hypofractionated+sequential-boost (H-SB) (42.4 Gy/16 fractions+16 Gy/8 fractions), normofractionated+ sequential-boost (N-SB) (50.4 Gy/28 fractions+16 Gy/8 fractions). Equivalent doses (EQD2) to organs-at-risk (OAR) and irradiated mammary-gland were analysed for different assumed α/β-values. Results: The mean EQD2 to OAR was significantly lower using hypofractionated radiation-techniques. H-SIB and H-SB were not significantly different. H-SIB and N-SIB conformed significantly better to the breast planning-target volume (PTV) and boost-volume (BV) than H-SB and N-SB. Regarding BV, mean EQD2 was significantly higher for all α/β-values investigated when using H-SIB and N-SIB. Regarding PTV, there were no clinically relevant differences. Conclusion: Relating to dosimetry, H-SIB is effective compared to standard-boost-techniques. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 17.05.2021 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1791-7530 |
| DOI: | 10.21873/anticanres.14957 |