Effect of auto flash margin on superficial dose in breast conserving radiotherapy for breast cancer. Issue 6 (24th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Lu; Qiu, Gang; Yu, Jianhe; Zhang, Qunhui; Man, Li; Chen, Li; Zhang, Xiaoxiao; Ren, Qun; Xu, Hongxia; Hua, Xiaolong
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 22:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 60
• Page End: 70
• Publication Date: 2021-05-24
• Subjects: auto flash margin -- breast cancer -- inspiratory exercise -- superficial dose -- XVMC; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13287
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the dose‐effect of Auto Flash Margin (AFM) on breast cancer's superficial tissues based on the Treatment Planning System (TPS) in the breast‐conserving radiotherapy plan. Methods: A total of 16 breast‐conserving patients with early stage breast cancer were selected, using the X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm. Then, every included case plan was designed using a 2 cm‐AFM (the value of AFM is 2 cm) and N‐AFM (without AFM). Under the condition of ensuring the same configuration of #MU and collimator, the absorbed dose after a simulated inspiratory motion was calculated again using the new plan center, which moved backward to the linac source. The dose difference between the measurement points between AFM and N‐AFM groups was compared. Results: In the dose results, PTVV50Gy of the AFM group was superior to that of the N‐AFM group, PTVD2%, PTVDmean, Lung_IpsiV20Gy, Lung_IpsiDmean, and BodyDmax . Also, the dose results of the N‐AFM group were significantly higher than those of the AFM group. However, there was no significant difference between Lung_ContraV5Gy, HeartDmean, and Breast_ContraV10Gy in the two groups. In the collimator alignments at the same angle between groups, the AFM group formed an apparent air region outside the collimator compared with the N‐AFM group. In the XVMC algorithm feature parameter, the AFM group had less #MU, higher QE, and slightly longer optimization time. The #segments of both groups were close to the 240 control points preset by the plan. The validation results of EBT3 film in both groups were more significant than 95%, meeting the clinical plan's application requirements. The difference in film results between groups was mainly reflected in the dose distribution at the near‐source. 4DCT was used to summarize the maximum and minimum inspiratory motion distances of 7.31 ± 0.45 and 3.42 ± 0.91 mm respectively. Conclusions: These results suggest that the AFM function application could significantly reduce the possibility of insufficient tumor target caused by inspiratory motion and ensure sufficient tumor target exposure.