No abstract

The aim of this study was to identify a rational strategy for the selection of multi-beam IMRT in patients with right breast cancer through the comparison of dosimetric parameters of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) using five different radiotherapy modalities. This was a retrospective study using computed tomography scans from ten patients with early-stage right breast cancer who had been treated previously. Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), forward-planned IMRT (for-IMRT), inverse-planned IMRT (inv-IMRT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were planned for each patient. The plans were compared according to dose–volume histogram analysis. The most significant impact of inverse-planned multi-beam modalities for right breast cancer was the reduction of Dmax, Dmean, V53.5 and prescribed dose volume (cc) outside of the PTV (breast) (OB-V50) of the PTV. HT decreased the ipsilateral OAR volumes receiving higher doses. In exchange, HT also increased the volumes receiving low doses, which is known to lead to an increased rate of radiation-induced secondary malignancies. The heart, LAD, and contralateral doses for 3DCRT and for-IMRT were significantly lower than those for inv-IMRT, HT, and VMAT. In addition, inv-IMRT demonstrated an increase in exposed volume of heart, LAD, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral lung compared with those parameters for HT or VMAT. Although it is known to reduce cardiac toxicity with breath hold technique in left sided breast cancer, similarly it is possible for 3DCRT and for-IMRT techniques in right sided breast cancer even in free breathing.

Objective: In this study, we used the concept of organ-equivalent dose (OED) to evaluate the excess absolute risk (EAR) for secondary cancer in various organs after radiation treatment for breast cancer. Methods: Using CT data set of 12 patients, we generated three different whole-breast radiation treatment plans using 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions: three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with a field-in-field (FinF) technique, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The OEDs were calculated from differential dose–volume histograms on the basis of the “linear–exponential,” “plateau,” and “full mechanistic” dose–response models. Secondary cancer risks of the contralateral breast (CB), contralateral lung (CL), and ipsilateral lung (IL) were estimated and compared. Results: The lowest EARs for the CB, CL, and IL were achieved with FinF, which reduced the EARs by 77%, 88%, and 56% relative to those with IMRT, and by 77%, 84%, and 58% relative to those with VMAT, respectively. The secondary cancer risk for FinF was significantly lower than those of IMRT and VMAT. OED-based secondary cancer risks for CB and IL were similar when IMRT and VMAT were used, but the risk for CL was statistically lower when VMAT was used. Conclusion: The overall estimation of EAR indicated that the radiation-induced cancer risk of breast radiation therapy was lower with FinF than with IMRT and VMAT. Therefore, when secondary cancer risk is a major concern, FinF is considered to be the preferred treatment option in irradiation of whole-breast. Advances in knowledge: Secondary malignancy estimation after breast radiotherapy is becoming an important subject for comparative treatment planning.When secondary cancer risk a major concern, FinF technique is considered the preferred treatment option in whole breast patients.

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of melatonin and genistein on radiation-induced nephrotoxicity (RIN). A total of 70 Swiss Albino mice were divided into 7 groups. Five control groups were defined, which were sham irradiation (C, G1), radiation therapy only (RT, G2), melatonin (M, G3), genistein (G, G4) and polyethylene glycol-400 (G5), respectively. The co-treatment groups were the RT plus melatonin (RT+M, G6) and RT plus genistein (RT+G, G7) groups. Irradiation was applied using a cobalt-60 teletherapy machine (80-cm fixed source-to-surface distance, 2.5-cm depth). Melatonin was administered (100 mg/kg, intraperitoneal injection) 30 min before the single dose of irradiation, whereas genistein was administered (200 mg/kg, subcutaneous injection) 1 day before the single dose of irradiation. All the mice were sacrificed 6 months after irradiation. As an end point, the extent of renal tubular atrophy for each mouse was quantified with image analysis of histological sections of the kidney. Tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were also measured in each animal. In the histopathological examination of the mouse kidneys, there was a statistically significant reduction (P<0.05) in the presence of tubular atrophy between the RT+M and RT+G groups and the RT group. There was a statistically significant increase in MDA levels in the irradiated versus sham groups (RT vs. C; P<0.05); however, MDA levels were significantly decreased by co-treatment with melatonin or genistein vs. RT alone (RT+M and RT+G vs. RT; P<0.05). In conclusion, the present experimental study showed that melatonin and genistein supplementation prior to irradiation-protected mice against RIN, which may have therapeutic implications for radiation-induced injuries.

The aim of the present study was to compare radiation dose received by thyroid gland using different radiotherapy (RT) techniques with or without thyroid dose constraint (DC) for breast cancer patients. Computerized tomography (CT) image sets for 10 patients with breast cancer were selected. All patients were treated originally with opposite tangential field‐in field (FinF) for the chest wall and anteroposterior fields for the ipsilateral supraclavicular field. The thyroid gland was not contoured on the CT images at the time of the original scheduled treatment. Four new treatment plans were created for each patient, including intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) plans with thyroid DC exclusion and inclusion (IMRTDC(−), IMRTDC(+), HTDC(−), and HTDC(+), respectively). Thyroid DCs were used to create acceptable dose limits to avoid hypothyroidism as follows: percentage of thyroid volume exceeding 30 Gy less than 50% (V30 < 50%) and mean dose of thyroid (TDmean) ≤ 21 Gy. Dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) for TDmean and percentages of thyroid volume exceeding 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 Gy (V10, V20, V30, V40, and V50, respectively) were also analyzed. The Dmean of the FinF, IMRTDC(−), HTDC(−), IMRTDC(+) and HTDC(+) plans were 30.56 ± 5.38 Gy, 25.56 ± 6.66 Gy, 27.48 ± 4.16 Gy, 18.57 ± 2.14 Gy, and 17.34 ± 2.70 Gy, respectively. Median V30 values were 55%, 33%, 36%, 18%, and 17%, for FinF, IMRTDC(−), HTDC(−), IMRTDC(+), and HTDC(+), respectively. Differences between treatment plans with or without DC with respect to Dmean and V30 values were statistically significant (P < 0.05). When thyroid DC during breast cancer RT was applied to IMRT and HT, the TDmean and V30 values significantly decreased. Therefore, recognition of the thyroid as an organ at risk (OAR) and the use of DCs during IMRT and HT planning to minimize radiation dose and thyroid volume exposure are recommended.