These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Boosting the tumor bed from deep-seated tumors in early-stage breast cancer: a planning study between electron, photon, and proton beams.
    Author: Toscas JI, Linero D, Rubio I, Hidalgo A, Arnalte R, Escudé L, Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Miralbell R.
    Journal: Radiother Oncol; 2010 Aug; 96(2):192-8. PubMed ID: 20538361.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To assess the potential dosimetric advantages and drawbacks of photon beams (modulated or not), electron beams (EB), and protons as a boost for the tumor bed in deep-seated early-stage breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Planning CTs of 14 women with deep-seated tumors (i.e., > or =4 cm depth) were selected. The clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the area of architectural distortion surrounded by surgical clips. The planning treatment volume (PTV) was the CTV plus 1cm margin. A dose of 16 Gy in 2 Gy fractions was prescribed. Organs at risk (OARs) were heart, lungs, breasts, and a 5-mm thick skin segment on the breast surface. Dose-volume metrics were defined to quantify the quality of concurrent treatment plans assessing target coverage and sparing of OAR. The following treatment techniques were assessed: photon beams with either static 3D-conformal, dynamic arc (DCA), static gantry intensity-modulated beams (IMRT), or RapidArc (RA); a single conformal EB; and intensity-modulated proton beams (IMPT). The goal for this planning effort was to cover 100% of the CTV with 95% of the prescribed dose and to minimize the volume inside the CTV receiving >107% of the dose. RESULTS: All techniques but DCA and EB achieved the planning objective for the CTV with an inhomogeneity ranging from 2% to 11%. RA showed the best conformity, EB the worst. Contra-lateral breast and lung were spared by all techniques with mean doses <0.5 Gy (zero for protons). The ipsi-lateral lung received a mean dose <10% of that prescribed with photon beams and <2% with IMPT, increasing to 17% with EB. The heart, in left-sided breast tumors, received also the highest dose with EB. The skin was best protected with RA with a mean dose of 5.4 Gy and V(15Gy)=2.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Boosting the tumor bed in early-stage breast cancer with optimized photon or proton beams may be preferred to EB especially for deep-seated targets. The marked OAR (i.e., ipsi-lateral breast, lung, heart, and skin surface) dose-sparing effect may allow for a potential long-term toxicity risk reduction and better cosmesis. DCA or RA may also be considered alternative treatment options for patients eligible for accelerated partial breast irradiation trials.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]