Journal of cancer research and therapeutics · 2023
Target volume coverage in clinically designed radiotherapy plan of post-mastectomy adjuvant radiotherapy of breast cancer patients in comparison with radiation therapy oncology group-based contoured plan: A dosimetric study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Azam Mohammad, Agrawal Animesh, Sahni Kamal, Rastogi Madhup, Rathi Arun Kumar, Farzana S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Conventional field radiotherapy based on anatomical landmarks has been the traditional treatment for breast cancer. Having proven efficacy, it is still the current standard of treatment. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) has published guidelines for contouring target volumes in postmastectomy patients. The impact of this guideline in the current clinical practice is less known; hence, we have analyzed dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for these plans and compared them with the proposed treatment plans to treat RTOG-defined targets.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: RTOG consensus definitions were used to contour the target volumes in 20 previously treated postmastectomy patients. The prescription was 42.4 Gy in 16 fractions. DVHs were generated from clinically designed plans that had actually been delivered to each patient. For comparing dose to target volumes, new plans were generated with the goal of covering 95% of volume to 90% of prescribed dose.
RESULTS: In RTOG contoured Group, coverage improved for the supraclavicular (V90 = 83 vs. 94.9%, P < 0.05) and chest wall (V90 = 89.8 vs. 95.2%, P < 0.05). Axillary nodal coverage improved for Level-1(V90 = 80.35 vs. 96.40%, P < 0.05), Level-II (V90 = 85.93 vs. 97.09%, P < 0.05) and Level III (V90 = 86.67 vs. 98.6%, P < 0.05). The dose to the ipsilateral lung is increased (V20 = 23.87 vs. 28.73%, P < 0.05). Low dose to heart is increased in left-sided cases (V5 = 14.52 vs. 16.72%, P < 0.05) while same in right-sided cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that radiotherapy using the RTOG consensus guidelines improves coverage to target volumes with a nonsignificant increase in normal organ dose compared to that based on anatomical landmarks.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: RTOG consensus definitions were used to contour the target volumes in 20 previously treated postmastectomy patients. The prescription was 42.4 Gy in 16 fractions. DVHs were generated from clinically designed plans that had actually been delivered to each patient. For comparing dose to target volumes, new plans were generated with the goal of covering 95% of volume to 90% of prescribed dose.
RESULTS: In RTOG contoured Group, coverage improved for the supraclavicular (V90 = 83 vs. 94.9%, P < 0.05) and chest wall (V90 = 89.8 vs. 95.2%, P < 0.05). Axillary nodal coverage improved for Level-1(V90 = 80.35 vs. 96.40%, P < 0.05), Level-II (V90 = 85.93 vs. 97.09%, P < 0.05) and Level III (V90 = 86.67 vs. 98.6%, P < 0.05). The dose to the ipsilateral lung is increased (V20 = 23.87 vs. 28.73%, P < 0.05). Low dose to heart is increased in left-sided cases (V5 = 14.52 vs. 16.72%, P < 0.05) while same in right-sided cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that radiotherapy using the RTOG consensus guidelines improves coverage to target volumes with a nonsignificant increase in normal organ dose compared to that based on anatomical landmarks.