Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/jkstro.2010.28.3.177

Difference in the Set-up Margin between 2D Conventional and 3D CT Based Planning in Patients with Early Breast Cancer  

Jo, Sun-Mi (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Chun, Mi-Son (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Kim, Mi-Hwa (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Oh, Young-Taek (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Kang, Seung-Hee (Inje University, Ilsan-Paik Hospital)
Noh, O-Kyu (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Radiation Oncology Journal / v.28, no.3, 2010 , pp. 177-183 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: Simulation using computed tomography (CT) is now widely available for radiation treatment planning for breast cancer. It is an important tool to help define the tumor target and normal tissue based on anatomical features of an individual patient. In Korea, most patients have small sized breasts and the purpose of this study was to review the margin of treatment field between conventional two-dimensional (2D) planning and CT based three-dimensional (3D) planning in patients with small breasts. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients with early breast cancer undergoing breast conservation therapy were selected. All patients underwent 3D CT based planning with a conventional breast tangential field design. In 2D planning, the treatment field margins were determined by palpation of the breast parenchyma (In general, the superior: base of the clavicle, medial: midline, lateral: mid - axillary line, and inferior margin: 2 m below the inframammary fold). In 3D planning, the clinical target volume (CTV) ought to comprise all glandular breast tissue, and the PTV was obtained by adding a 3D margin of 1 cm around the CTV except in the skin direction. The difference in the treatment field margin and equivalent field size between 2D and 3D planning were evaluated. The association between radiation field margins and factors such as body mass index, menopause status, and bra size was determined. Lung volume and heart volume were examined on the basis of the prescribed breast radiation dose and 3D dose distribution. Results: The margins of the treatment field were smaller in the 3D planning except for two patients. The superior margin was especially variable (average, 2.5 cm; range, -2.5 to 4.5 cm; SD, 1.85). The margin of these targets did not vary equally across BMI class, menopause status, or bra size. The average irradiated lung volume was significantly lower for 3D planning. The average irradiated heart volume did not decrease significantly. Conclusion: The use of 3D CT based planning reduced the radiation field in early breast cancer patients with small breasts in relation to conventional planning. Though a coherent definition of the breast is needed, CT-based planning generated the better plan in terms of reducing the irradiation volume of normal tissue. Moreover it was possible that 3D CT based planning showed better CTV coverage including postoperative change.
Keywords
Three-dimensional planning; Breast cancer; Clinical target volume; Radiotherapy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Vicini FA, Sharpe M, Kestin L, et al. Optimizing breast cancer treatment efficacy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:1336-1344   DOI   ScienceOn
2 van der Laan HP, Dolsma WV, Maduro JH, Korevaar EW, Hollander M, Langendijk JA. Three-dimensional conformal simultaneously integrated boost technique for breast-conserving radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:1018-1023   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Gagliardi G, Lax I, Ottolenghi A, Rutqvist LE. Longterm cardiac mortality after radiotherapy of breast cancer: application of the relative seriality model. Br J Radiol 1996;69:839-846   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Rutqvist LE, Lax I, Fornander T, Johansson H. Cardiovascular mortality in a randomized trial of adjuvant radiation therapy versus surgery alone in primary breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992;22:887-896   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Cuzick J, Stewart H, Rutqvist L, et al. Cause-specific mortality in long-term survivors of breast cancer who participated in trials of radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:447-453
6 Landis DM, Luo W, Song J, et al. Variability among breast radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical lumpectomy cavity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:1299- 1308   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Mayo CS, Urie MM, Fitzgerald TJ. Hybrid IMRT plans: concurrently treating conventional and IMRT beams for improved breast irradiation and reduced planning time. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:922-932
8 Van Vaerenbergh K, De Gersem W, Vakaet L, et al. Automatic generation of a plan optimization volume for tangential field breast cancer radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181:82-88   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Struikmans H, Warlam-Rodenhuis C, Stam T, et al. Interobserver variability of clinical target volume delineation of glandular breast tissue and of boost volume in tangential breast irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2005;76:293-299   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Krengli M, Sacco M, Loi G, et al. Pulmonary changes after radiotherapy for conservative treatment of breast cancer: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70:1460-1467   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Nishioka A, Ogawa Y, Hamada N, Terashima M, Inomata T, Yoshida S. Analysis of radiation pneumonitis and radiation-induced lung fibrosis in breast cancer patients after breast conservation treatment. Oncol Rep 1999;6:513-517
12 Ooi GC, Kwong DL, Ho JC, et al. Pulmonary sequelae of treatment for breast cancer: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:411-419   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Hernberg M, Virkkunen P, Maasilta P, et al. Pulmonary toxicity after radiotherapy in primary breast cancer patients: results from a randomized chemotherapy study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:128-136   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Jarvenpaa R, Holli K, Pitkanen M, et al. Radiological pulmonary findings after breast cancer irradiation: a prospective study. Acta Oncol 2006;45:16-22   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Krasin M, McCall A, King S, Olson M, Emami B. Evaluation of a standard breast tangent technique: a dosevolume analysis of tangential irradiation using three-dimensional tools. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:327-333   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Thilmann C, Zabel A, Nill S, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the female breast. Med Dosim 2002;27:79-90   DOI   ScienceOn
17 van Asselen B, Schwarz M, van Vliet-Vroegindeweij C, Lebesque JV, Mijnheer BJ, Damen EM. Intensitymodulated radiotherapy of breast cancer using direct aperture optimization. Radiother Oncol 2006;79:162-169   DOI   ScienceOn
18 van Asselen B, Raaijmakers CP, Hofman P, Lagendijk JJ. An improved breast irradiation technique using threedimensional geometrical information and intensity modulation. Radiother Oncol 2001;58:341-347   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW, Wazer DE, Freeman C. Perez and Brady's Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2007:1234-1244
20 Hurkmans CW, Borger JH, Pieters BR, Russell NS, Jansen EP, Mijnheer BJ. Variability in target volume delineation on CT scans of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:1366-1372   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Gonzalez VJ, Buchholz DJ, Langen KM, et al. Evaluation of two tomotherapy-based techniques for the delivery of whole-breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:284-290   DOI   ScienceOn