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: Fully automated volumetric modulated arc therapy technique for radiation therapy of locally advanced breast cancer.
    Author: Marrazzo L, Redapi L, Pellegrini R, Voet P, Meattini I, Arilli C, Calusi S, Casati M, Chilà D, Compagnucci A, Talamonti C, Zani M, Livi L, Pallotta S.
    Journal: Radiat Oncol; 2023 Oct 30; 18(1):176. PubMed ID: 37904150.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate an a-priori multicriteria plan optimization algorithm (mCycle) for locally advanced breast cancer radiation therapy (RT) by comparing automatically generated VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) plans (AP-VMAT) with manual clinical Helical Tomotherapy (HT) plans. METHODS: The study included 25 patients who received postoperative RT using HT. The patient cohort had diverse target selections, including both left and right breast/chest wall (CW) and III-IV node, with or without internal mammary node (IMN) and Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB). The Planning Target Volume (PTV) was obtained by applying a 5 mm isotropic expansion to the CTV (Clinical Target Volume), with a 5 mm clip from the skin. Comparisons of dosimetric parameters and delivery/planning times were conducted. Dosimetric verification of the AP-VMAT plans was performed. RESULTS: The study showed statistically significant improvements in AP-VMAT plans compared to HT for OARs (Organs At Risk) mean dose, except for the heart and ipsilateral lung. No significant differences in V95% were observed for PTV breast/CW and PTV III-IV, while increased coverage (higher V95%) was seen for PTV IMN in AP-VMAT plans. HT plans exhibited smaller values of PTV V105% for breast/CW and III-IV, with no differences in PTV IMN and boost. HT had an average (± standard deviation) delivery time of (17 ± 8) minutes, while AP-VMAT took (3 ± 1) minutes. The average γ passing rate for AP-VMAT plans was 97%±1%. Planning times reduced from an average of 6 h for HT to about 2 min for AP-VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing AP-VMAT plans with clinical HT plans showed similar or improved quality. The implementation of mCycle demonstrated successful automation of the planning process for VMAT treatment of locally advanced breast cancer, significantly reducing workload.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]