Unintended dose to the lower axilla in adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer: Differences between tangential beam and VMAT. (November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ahrouch, Imane; Van Gestel, Dirk; Koshariuk, Olga; Kirkove, Carine; Desmet, Antoine; Philippson, Catherine; Reynaert, Nick; De Caluwe, Alex
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 164(2021)
• Page Start: 282
• Page End: 288
• Publication Date: 2021-11
• Subjects: Breast cancer -- Adjuvant radiation therapy -- Volumetric-modulated arc therapy -- Incidental dose -- Axilla; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: VMAT does not reduce the unintended axillary dose in comparison with tangential beams. Intermediate unintended dose to level I of the axilla was higher with VMAT. Abstract: Background and purpose: To evaluate dosimetric differences in unintended dose to the lower axilla between 3D-standard (3DCRT), tangential beam forward intensity modulated radiotherapy (F-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The objective is to evaluate whether results of clinical trials, such as the ACOSOG-Z011 trial, that evaluated omission of axillary clearance can be extrapolated towards more conformal techniques like VMAT. Materials and methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients treated with whole breast radiotherapy alone (WBRT) using a F-IMRT technique were identified. Three additional plans were created for every patient: one plan using a single 270° arc (VMAT 1x270°), another using two small ≤90° opposing arcs (VMAT 2x < 90°) and thirdly a 3DCRT plan without F-IMRT. Axillary levels I-II were contoured after the treatment plans were made. Results: The volume of the axilla level I that was covered by the 50% isodose (V50%) was significantly higher for VMAT 2x < 90° (71.3 cm 3, 84% of structure volume, p < 0.001) and VMAT 1x270° (68.8 cm 3, 81%, p < 0.01) compared to 3DCRT (60.3 cm 3, 71%) and F-IMRT (60.8 cm 3, 72%). The V50% to the axilla level II, however, was low for all techniques: 12.3 cm 3 (12%); 8.9 cm 3 (9%); 4.3 cm 3 (4%); 4.4 cm 3 (4%) for VMAT 2x < 90°, VMAT 1x270°, 3DCRT, F-IMRT, respectively. For the higher doses (V90% and above), no clinically relevant differences were seen between the different modalities. Conclusion: WBRT treatments with VMAT do not lead to a significant reduction of the unintended axillary dose in comparison with a tangential beam setup. Hence, concerning tumor control, VMAT can be applied to clinical situations similar to the Z0011 trial. The intermediate axillary dose is higher with VMAT, but the clinical consequence of this difference on toxicity is unknown.