Purpose
To investigate the fixedâjaw intensityâmodulated radiotherapy (FâIMRT) and tangential partial volumetric modulated arc therapy (tPâVMAT) treatment plans for synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC).
Materials and method
Twelve SBBC patients with pTisâ2N0M0 stages who underwent wholeâbreast irradiation after breastâconserving surgery were planned with FâIMRT and tPâVMAT techniques prescribing 42.56Â Gy (2.66Â Gy*16f) to the breast. The FâIMRT used 8â12 jawâfixed tangential fields with single (sFâIMRT) or two (FâIMRT) isocenters located under the sternum or in the center of the left and right planning target volumes (PTVs), and tPâVMAT used 4 tangential partial arcs with two isocenters located in the center of the left and right PTVs. Plan evaluation was based on doseâvolume histogram (DVH) analysis. Dosimetric parameters were calculated to evaluate plan quality; total monitor units (MUs), and the gamma analysis for patientâspecific quality assurance (QA) were also evaluated.
Results
For PTVs, the three plans had similar Dmean and conformity index (CI) values. FâIMRT showed a slightly better target coverage according to the V100% values and demonstrated an obvious reduction in V105% and Dmax compared with the values observed for sFâIMRT and tPâVMAT. Compared with tPâVMAT, sFâIMRT was slightly better in terms of V100%, V105% and Dmax. In addition, FâIMRT achieved the best homogeneity index (HI) values for PTVs. Concerning healthy tissue, tPâVMAT had an advantage in minimizing the high dose volume. The MUs of the tPâVMAT plan were decreased approximately 1.45 and 1 times compared with the sFâIMRT and FâIMRT plans, respectively, and all plans passed QA. For the lungs, heart and liver, FâIMRT achieved the smallest values in terms of Dmean and showed a significant difference compared with tPâVMAT. Simultaneously, sFâIMRT was also superior to tPâVMAT. For the coronary artery, tPâVMAT achieved the lowest Dmean, while the value for FâIMRT was 2.24% lower compared with sFâIMRT. For all organs at risk (OARs), tPâVMAT was superior at the high dose level. In contrast, sFâIMRT and FâIMRT were obviously superior at the low dose level. The sFâIMRT and FâIMRT plans showed consistent trends.
Conclusion
All treatment plans for the provided techniques were of high quality and feasible for SBBC patients. However, we recommend FâIMRT with a single isocenter as a priority technique because of the tremendous advantage of local hot spot control in PTVs and the reduced dose to OARs at low dose levels. When the irradiated dose to the lungs and heart exceed the clinical restriction, two isocenter FâIMRT can be used to maximize OAR sparing. Additionally, tPâVMAT can be adopted for improving cold spots in PTVs or highâdose exposure to normal tissue when the interval between PTVs is narrow.