Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/507
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDean, J.-
dc.contributor.authorHansen, C. J.-
dc.contributor.authorWesthuyzen, J.-
dc.contributor.authorWaller, B.-
dc.contributor.authorTurnbull, K.-
dc.contributor.authorWood, M.-
dc.contributor.authorLast, A.-
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-06T04:59:10Z-
dc.date.available2025-02-06T04:59:10Z-
dc.date.issued2016-07-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2016 Jul 18;63(4):217–223.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/507-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Inverse‐planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IP‐IMRT) has potential benefits over other techniques for tangential intact breast radiotherapy. Possible benefits include increased homogeneity, faster planning time, less inter‐planner variability and lower doses to organs at risk (OAR). We therefore conducted a pilot study of previously treated intact breast patients to compare the current forward‐planned ‘field‐in‐field’ technique (FP‐IMRT) with an IP‐IMRT alternative. Methods The IP‐IMRT plans of 20 patients were generated from a template created for the planning system. All patients were prescribed adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy using a hypofractionated regimen of 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. Plans were assessed based on visual inspection of coverage as well as statistical analysis and compared to the clinically acceptable FP‐IMRT plans. Patients were planned retrospectively in Monaco 3.2® using a laterality‐specific, tangential planning template. Minor adjustments were made as necessary to meet the planning criteria in the protocol. Dose coverage, maximums, homogeneity indices and doses to OAR were recorded. Results The IP‐IMRT plans provided more consistent coverage (38.18 Gy vs. 36.08 Gy of D95; P = 0.005), a comparable though higher average maximum (D2 = 42.52 Gy vs. 42.08 Gy; P = 0.0001), more homogeneous plans (homogeneity index = 0.908 vs. 0.861; P = 0.01) and somewhat lower V20 heart and lung doses (0.11% vs. 0.89% for heart; 5.4% vs. 7.52% for lung) than FP‐IMRT (P > 0.05). Conclusion Clinically acceptable plans have been generated using the IP‐IMRT templates in Monaco. Improvements in consistency and quality were seen when compared to the FP‐IMRT plans. The template‐based process is an efficient method to inversely plan IMRT for breast patients.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulateden
dc.subjectOrgans at Risken
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasmsen
dc.subjectRadiation Oncologyen
dc.titleTangential intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the intact breasten
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorDean, Jenna-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorHansen, Carmen-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorWesthuyzen, Justin-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorWaller, Brett-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorTurnbull, Kirsty-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorWood, Maree-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorLast, Andrew-
Appears in Collections:Oncology / Cancer

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat  
JMRS-63-217.pdf554.4 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing