Feasibility of using nonflat photon beams for whole‐breast irradiation with breath hold

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2014-01, Vol.15 (1), p.57-64
• Main Authors: Wang, Yuenan, Vassil, Andrew, Tendulkar, Rahul, Bayouth, John, Xia, Ping
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brain cancer; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy; breast radiotherapy; Breath Holding; Cancer therapies; direct aperture optimization; Dosimetry; Feasibility Studies; Female; flattening filter‐free; Follow-Up Studies; forward‐planning; Humans; nonflat photon beams; Optimization; Organs at Risk; Patients; Photons - therapeutic use; Planning; Radiation Oncology Physics; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4397

Removing a flattening filter or replacing it with a thinner filter alters the characteristics of a photon beam, creating a forward peaked intensity profile to make the photon beam nonflat. This study is to investigate the feasibility of applying nonflat photon beams to the whole‐breast irradiation with breath holds for a potential of delivery time reduction during the gated treatment. Photon beams of 6 MV with flat and nonflat intensity profiles were commissioned. Fifteen patients with early‐stage breast cancer, who received whole‐breast radiation without breathing control, were retrospectively selected for this study. For each patient, three plans were created using a commercial treatment planning system: (a) the clinically approved plan using forward planning method (FP); (b) a hybrid intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan where the flat beam open fields were combined with the nonflat beam IMRT fields using direct aperture optimization method (mixed DAO); (c) a hybrid IMRT plan where both open and IMRT fields were from nonflat beams using direct aperture optimization (nonflat DAO). All plans were prescribed for ≥95% of the breast volume receiving the prescription dose of 50 Gy (2.0 Gy per fraction). In comparison, all plans achieved a similar dosimetric coverage to the targeted volume. The average homogeneity index of the FP, mixed DAO, and nonflat DAO plans were 0.882±0.024, 0.879±0.023, and 0.867±0.027, respectively. The average percentage volume of V105 was 57.66%±5.21%, 34.67%±4.91%, 41.64%±5.32% for the FP, mixed, and nonflat DAO plans, respectively. There was no significant difference (p>0.05) observed for the defined endpoint doses in organs at risk (OARs). In conclusion, both mixed DAO and nonflat DAO plans can achieve similar plan quality as the clinically approved FP plan, measured by plan homogeneity and endpoint doses to the ORAs. Nonflat beam plans may reduce treatment time in breath‐hold treatment, especially for hypofractionated treatment. PACS number: 87.55