Radiobiological Evaluation and Comparison of Treatment Plans in Two Methods of 3D Adaptive Radiation Therapy and Tomotherapy for Left Pendular Breast Cancer and the Risk of Pericarditis and Pneumonia

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 MSc Student, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 MSc, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seyyed Al-Shohada Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 PhD, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

5 Professor, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complications probability (NTCP) of three-dimensional adaptive radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and tomotherapy for left pendular breast cancer using radiobiological models.
Methods: The current study was conducted on 20 patients with left pendular breast cancer who underwent treatment planning using the treatment planning system for 3D-CRT and tomotherapy. A prescribed dose of
50 Gy was implemented for the planning target volume (PTV) in both 3D-CRT and tomotherapy designs. The Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD) of the Niemierko model was used to estimate the tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complications probability (NTCP).
Findings: According to the results, the average TCP values for 3D-CRT and tomotherapy plans were
99.07 ± 0.13 and 99.32 ± 0.09, respectively, which did not show a statistically significant difference. The NTCP values for the lung and heart were significantly lower in tomotherapy plans compared to 3D-CRT plans.
Conclusion: From a radiobiological point of view, the results showed that 3D-CRT resulted in a lower NTCP for the ipsilateral lung. In contrast, for TCP calculations, tomotherapy plans showed higher values compared to 3D-CRT plans.

Highlights

Ahmad Shanei : PubMed, Google Scholar

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ben-Dror J, Shalamov M, Sonnenblick A. The history of early breast cancer treatment. Genes (Basel) 2022; 13(6): 960.
  2. Kivanc H, Gultekin M, Gurkaynak M, Ozyigit G,
    Yildiz F. Dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for left-sided chest wall and lymphatic irradiation. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019;
    20(12): 36-44.
  3. Ricotti R, Miglietta E, Leonardi MC, Cattani F, Dicuonzo S, Rojas DP, et al. Workload of breast image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered with TomoTherapy. Tumori 2020; 106(6): 518-23.
  4. Bartlett FR, Colgan RM, Donovan EM, McNair HA, Carr K, Evans PM, et al. The UK HeartSpare Study (Stage IB): randomised comparison of a voluntary breath-hold technique and prone radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery. Radiother Oncol 2015; 114(1): 66-72.
  5. Pattanayak L, Mohanty S, Sahu DK, Dash TK, Priyadarsini I. Dose volume relationship in estimating cardiac doses in breast cancer radiotherapy. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research 2020;14(11): 5-9.
  6. Astudillo VA, Paredes GL, Resendiz GG, Posadas VA, Mitsoura E, Rodriguez L A, et al. TCP and NTCP radiobiological models: conventional and hypo fractionated treatments in radiotherapy.[Online]; 2015. Available from: URL: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:47020851.
  7. Dörr W, Herrmann T, Trott KR. Normal tissue tolerance. Translational Cancer Research 2017; 6(Suppl 5): S840-S51.
  8. Mesbahi A, Rasouli N, Mohammadzadeh M, Nasiri Motlagh B, Ozan Tekin H. Comparison of radiobiological models for radiation therapy plans of prostate cancer: Three-dimensional conformal versus intensity modulated radiation therapy. J Biomed Phys Eng 2019; 9(3): 267-78.
  9. Cammarota F, Giugliano FM, Iadanza L, Cutillo L, Muto M, Toledo D, et al. Hypofractionated breast cancer radiotherapy. Helical tomotherapy in supine position or classic 3D-conformal radiotherapy in prone position: which is better? Anticancer Res 2014; 34(3): 1233-8.
  10. Chitapanarux I, Nobnop W, Tippanya D, Sripan P, Chakrabandhu S, Klunklin P, et al. Clinical outcomes and dosimetric study of hypofractionated Helical TomoTherapy in breast cancer patients. PLoS One 2019; 14(1): e0211578.
  11. Michalski A, Atyeo J, Cox J, Rinks M, Morgia M, Lamoury GJMD. A dosimetric comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT, and static tomotherapy with an SIB for large and small breast volumes. Med Dosim 2014; 39(2): 163-8.
  12. Schubert LK, Gondi V, Sengbusch E, Westerly DC, Soisson ET, Paliwal BR, et al. Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3DCRT, forward-planned IMRT, inverse-planned IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and topotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100(2): 241-6.
  13. Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Phys Med 2007; 23(3-4): 115-25.
  14. Hurkmans CW, Borger JH, Bos LJ, van der Horst A, Pieters BR, Lebesque JV, et al. Cardiac and lung complication probabilities after breast cancer irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2000; 55(2):
    145-51.
  15. Kivanc H, Gultekin M, Gurkaynak M, Ozyigit G, Yildiz F. Dosimetric comparison of three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for left‐sided chest wall and lymphatic irradiation. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20(12): 36-44.
  16. Lee B, Lee S, Sung J, Yoon M. Radiotherapy-induced secondary cancer risk for breast cancer: 3D conformal therapy versus IMRT versus VMAT.
    J Radiol Prot 2014; 34(2): 325-31.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 41, Issue 726
2nd Week, September
September and October 2023
Pages 543-549

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 17 April 2023
  • Revise Date: 02 September 2023
  • Accept Date: 18 June 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics