Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Saju Divakar x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Noora Al-Hammadi, Palmira Caparrotti, Carole Naim, Jillian Hayes, Katherine Rebecca Benson, Ana Vasic, Hissa Al-Abdulla, Rabih Hammoud, Saju Divakar and Primoz Petric

Abstract

Background

During radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer, parts of the heart are irradiated, which may lead to late toxicity. We report on the experience of single institution with cardiac-sparing radiotherapy using voluntary deep inspiration breath hold (V-DIBH) and compare its dosimetric outcome with free breathing (FB) technique.

Patients and methods

Left-sided breast cancer patients, treated at our department with postoperative radiotherapy of breast/chest wall +/– regional lymph nodes between May 2015 and January 2017, were considered for inclusion. FB-computed tomography (CT) was obtained and dose-planning performed. Cases with cardiac V25Gy ≥ 5% or risk factors for heart disease were coached for V-DIBH. Compliant patients were included. They underwent additional CT in V-DIBH for planning, followed by V-DIBH radiotherapy. Dose volume histogram parameters for heart, lung and optimized planning target volume (OPTV) were compared between FB and BH. Treatment setup shifts and systematic and random errors for V-DIBH technique were compared with FB historic control.

Results

Sixty-three patients were considered for V-DIBH. Nine (14.3%) were non-compliant at coaching, leaving 54 cases for analysis. When compared with FB, V-DIBH resulted in a significant reduction of mean cardiac dose from 6.1 +/– 2.5 to 3.2 +/– 1.4 Gy (p < 0.001), maximum cardiac dose from 51.1 +/– 1.4 to 48.5 +/– 6.8 Gy (p = 0.005) and cardiac V25Gy from 8.5 +/– 4.2 to 3.2 +/– 2.5% (p < 0.001). Heart volumes receiving low (10–20 Gy) and high (30–50 Gy) doses were also significantly reduced. Mean dose to the left anterior coronary artery was 23.0 (+/– 6.7) Gy and 14.8 (+/– 7.6) Gy on FB and V-DIBH, respectively (p < 0.001). Differences between FB- and V-DIBH-derived mean lung dose (11.3 +/– 3.2 vs. 10.6 +/– 2.6 Gy), lung V20Gy (20.5 +/– 7 vs. 19.5 +/– 5.1 Gy) and V95% for the OPTV (95.6 +/– 4.1 vs. 95.2 +/– 6.3%) were non-significant. V-DIBH-derived mean shifts for initial patient setup were ≤ 2.7 mm. Random and systematic errors were ≤ 2.1 mm. These results did not differ significantly from historic FB controls.

Conclusions

When compared with FB, V-DIBH demonstrated high setup accuracy and enabled significant reduction of cardiac doses without compromising the target volume coverage. Differences in lung doses were non-significant.

Open access

Noora Al-Hammadi, Palmira Caparrotti, Saju Divakar, Mohamed Riyas, Suparna Halsnad Chandramouli, Rabih Hammoud, Jillian Hayes, Maeve Mc Garry, Satheesh Prasad Paloor and Primoz Petric

Abstract

Background

Omitting the placement of clips inside tumour bed during breast cancer surgery poses a challenge for delineation of lumpectomy cavity clinical target volume (CTVLC). We aimed to quantify inter-observer variation and accuracy for CT- and MRI-based segmentation of CTVLC in patients without clips.

Patients and methods

CT- and MRI-simulator images of 12 breast cancer patients, treated by breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy, were included in this study. Five radiation oncologists recorded the cavity visualization score (CVS) and delineated CTVLC on both modalities. Expert-consensus (EC) contours were delineated by a senior radiation oncologist, respecting opinions of all observers. Inter-observer volumetric variation and generalized conformity index (CIgen) were calculated. Deviations from EC contour were quantified by the accuracy index (AI) and inter-delineation distances (IDD).

Results

Mean CVS was 3.88 +/− 0.99 and 3.05 +/− 1.07 for MRI and CT, respectively (p = 0.001). Mean volumes of CTVLC were similar: 154 +/− 26 cm3 on CT and 152 +/− 19 cm3 on MRI. Mean CIgen and AI were superior for MRI when compared with CT (CIgen: 0.74 +/− 0.07 vs. 0.67 +/− 0.12, p = 0.007; AI: 0.81 +/− 0.04 vs. 0.76 +/− 0.07; p = 0.004). CIgen and AI increased with increasing CVS. Mean IDD was 3 mm +/− 1.5 mm and 3.6 mm +/− 2.3 mm for MRI and CT, respectively (p = 0.017).

Conclusions

When compared with CT, MRI improved visualization of post-lumpectomy changes, reduced interobserver variation and improved the accuracy of CTVLC contouring in patients without clips in the tumour bed. Further studies with bigger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings.