| Difference in the Set-up Margin between 2D Conventional and 3D CT Based Planning in Patients with Early Breast Cancer |
| Sunmi Jo, Mison Chun, Mi Hwa Kim, Young Taek Oh, Seunghee Kang, O Kyu Noh |
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea. chunm@ajou.ac.kr
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University, Ilsan-Paik Hospital, Ilsan, Korea. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ABSTRACT |
PURPOSE:
Simulation using computed tomography (CT) is now widely available for radiation treatment planning for breast cancer. It is an important tool to help define the tumor target and normal tissue based on anatomical features of an individual patient. In Korea, most patients have small sized breasts and the purpose of this study was to review the margin of treatment field between conventional two-dimensional (2D) planning and CT based three-dimensional (3D) planning in patients with small breasts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Twenty-five consecutive patients with early breast cancer undergoing breast conservation therapy were selected. All patients underwent 3D CT based planning with a conventional breast tangential field design. In 2D planning, the treatment field margins were determined by palpation of the breast parenchyma (In general, the superior: base of the clavicle, medial: midline, lateral: mid - axillary line, and inferior margin: 2 m below the inframammary fold). In 3D planning, the clinical target volume (CTV) ought to comprise all glandular breast tissue, and the PTV was obtained by adding a 3D margin of 1 cm around the CTV except in the skin direction. The difference in the treatment field margin and equivalent field size between 2D and 3D planning were evaluated. The association between radiation field margins and factors such as body mass index, menopause status, and bra size was determined.
Lung volume and heart volume were examined on the basis of the prescribed breast radiation dose and 3D dose distribution.
RESULTS:
The margins of the treatment field were smaller in the 3D planning except for two patients. The superior margin was especially variable (average, 2.5 cm; range, -2.5 to 4.5 cm; SD, 1.85). The margin of these targets did not vary equally across BMI class, menopause status, or bra size. The average irradiated lung volume was significantly lower for 3D planning. The average irradiated heart volume did not decrease significantly.
CONCLUSION:
The use of 3D CT based planning reduced the radiation field in early breast cancer patients with small breasts in relation to conventional planning. Though a coherent definition of the breast is needed, CT-based planning generated the better plan in terms of reducing the irradiation volume of normal tissue. Moreover it was possible that 3D CT based planning showed better CTV coverage including postoperative change. |
| Key Words:
Three-dimensional planning, Breast cancer, Clinical target volume, Radiotherapy |
|
|
|
PDF Links
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
