We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
VMAT techniques for lymph node-positive left sided breast cancer.
Zeitschrift Für Medizinische Physik 2015 June
PURPOSE: To investigate the plan quality of two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for lymph node-positive left-sided breast cancer.
METHODS: Two VMAT plans were generated for 10 lymph node-positive left-sided breast cancer patients: one plan using one single segment of a full rotation, typically an arc segment of 230° (1s-VMAT); and a second plan consisting of 2 small tangential arc segments of about 50° (2s-VMAT). For plan comparison, various dose and dose volume metrics (Dmean, D98%, D2% for target volumes, D2%, Dmean and Vx% for organs at risk (OAR)) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Both techniques fulfilled both clinical target dose and OAR goals. 1s-VMAT achieved a slightly better homogeneity and better target coverage (D2%= 54.2 ± 0.7 Gy, D98%= 30.3 ± 1.8 Gy) compared to 2s-VMAT (D2%= 55.0 ± 1.1 Gy, D98%= 29.9 ± 1.7 Gy). For geometrical reasons, OAR sparing was noticeable but not significant better using 2s-VMAT, particularly heart and contralateral breast. The heart received a mean dose of 4.4 ± 0.8 Gy using 1s-VMAT and 3.3 ± 1.0 Gy using 2s-VMAT; the contralateral breast received 1.5 ± 0.3 Gy and 0.9 ± 0.3 Gy, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A VMAT technique based on two small tangential arc segments enables improved OAR sparing; the differences between the two techniques in target coverage and homogeneity are minor. Patient age and -anatomy must be considered for each individual case when deciding which technique to be used.
METHODS: Two VMAT plans were generated for 10 lymph node-positive left-sided breast cancer patients: one plan using one single segment of a full rotation, typically an arc segment of 230° (1s-VMAT); and a second plan consisting of 2 small tangential arc segments of about 50° (2s-VMAT). For plan comparison, various dose and dose volume metrics (Dmean, D98%, D2% for target volumes, D2%, Dmean and Vx% for organs at risk (OAR)) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Both techniques fulfilled both clinical target dose and OAR goals. 1s-VMAT achieved a slightly better homogeneity and better target coverage (D2%= 54.2 ± 0.7 Gy, D98%= 30.3 ± 1.8 Gy) compared to 2s-VMAT (D2%= 55.0 ± 1.1 Gy, D98%= 29.9 ± 1.7 Gy). For geometrical reasons, OAR sparing was noticeable but not significant better using 2s-VMAT, particularly heart and contralateral breast. The heart received a mean dose of 4.4 ± 0.8 Gy using 1s-VMAT and 3.3 ± 1.0 Gy using 2s-VMAT; the contralateral breast received 1.5 ± 0.3 Gy and 0.9 ± 0.3 Gy, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A VMAT technique based on two small tangential arc segments enables improved OAR sparing; the differences between the two techniques in target coverage and homogeneity are minor. Patient age and -anatomy must be considered for each individual case when deciding which technique to be used.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app