Comparison of cardiac and lung doses for breast cancer patients with free breathing and deep inspiration breath hold technique in 3 dimensional conformal radiotherapy - a dosimetric study

Open access

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the cardio-pulmonary doses between Deep Inspiration Breath Hold (DIBH) and Free Breathing (FB) technique in left sided breast irradiation.

Materials & Methods: DIBH CT and FB CT were acquired for 10 left sided breast patients who underwent whole breast irradiation with or without nodal irradiation. Three fields single isocenter technique were used for patients with node positive patients along with two tangential conformal fields whereas only two tangential fields were used in node negative patients. All the critical structures like lungs, heart, esophagus, thyroid, etc., were delineated in both DIBH and FB scan. Both DIBH and FB scans were fused with the Dicom origin as they were acquired with the same Dicom coordinates. Plans were created in the DIBH scan for a dose range between 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Critical structures doses were recorded from the Dose Volume Histogram for both the DIBH and FB data set for evaluation.

Results: The average mean heart dose in DIBH vs FB was 13.18 Gy vs 6.97 Gy, (p = 0.0063) significantly with DIBH as compared to FB technique. The relative reduction in average mean heart dose was 47.12%. The relative V5 reduced by 14.70% (i.e. 34.42% vs 19.72%, p = 0.0080), V10 reduced by 13.83% (i.e. 27.79 % vs 13.96%, p = 0.0073). V20 reduced by 13.19% (i.e. 24.54 % vs 11.35%, p = 0.0069), V30 reduced by 12.38% (i.e. 22.27 % vs 9.89 %, p = 0.0073) significantly with DIBH as compared to FB. The average mean left lung dose reduced marginally by 1.43 Gy (13.73 Gy vs 12.30 Gy, p = 0.4599) but insignificantly with DIBH as compared to FB. Other left lung parameters (V5, V10, V20 and V30) shows marginal decreases in DIBH plans compare to FB plans.

Conclusion: DIBH shows a substantial reduction of cardiac doses but slight and insignificant reduction of pulmonary doses as compared with FB technique. Using the simple DIBH technique, we can effectively reduce the cardiac morbidity and at the same time radiation induced lung pneumonitis is unlikely to increase.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO). GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated cancer incidence mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx 2016.

  • [2] Chanda M. Breast Cancer. In: Lu JJ Brady LW (Eds.). Radiation Oncology: An Evidence based approach 1st Edition. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Springer; 2008. p. 111-127.

  • [3] Darby SC Ewertz M McGale P et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(11):987-998.

  • [4] Oinam AS Singh L Shukla A et al. Dose volume histogram analysis and comparison of different radiobiological models using in-house developed software. J Med Phys. 2011;36(4):220-229.

  • [5] Latty D Stuart KE Wang W Ahern V. Review of deep inspiration breath-hold techniques for treatment of breast cancer. J Med Radiat Sci. 2015;62(1):74-81.

  • [6] Keall PJ Mageras GS Balter JM et al. The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3874-3900.

  • [7] Sixel KE Aznar MC Ung YC. Deep inspiration breath-hold to reduce irradiated heart volume in breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49(1):199-204.

  • [8] Remouchamps VM Letts N Yan D et al. Three dimensional evaluation of intra- and interfraction immobilization of lung and chest wall using active breathing control: a reproducibility study with breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(4):968-978.

  • [9] Moran JM Balter JM Ben-David MA et al. Short-term displacement and reproducibility of the breast and nodal targets under active breathing control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(2):541-546.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.38

ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.132
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.303

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 449 225 23
PDF Downloads 138 84 2