4.7 Article

COVERAGE OF AXILLARY LYMPH NODES IN SUPINE VS. PRONE BREAST RADIOTHERAPY

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.040

Keywords

Breast cancer; Prone radiotherapy; Axillary lymph nodes; Dose-volume analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the dosimetry of target and normal tissue when tangents with the breast tissue were applied in a subset of breast cancer patients who had undergone computed tomography (CT) planning both supine and prone. Methods and Materials: The CT images of 20 patients who had undergone simulation in supine and prone positions were used for planning. The axillary lymph node regions (level I-III), breast tissue, tumor bed, heart, and bilateral lungs were manually contoured. Standard tangent fields were designed for the whole breast to deliver a prescribed dose of 50 Gy. Dose-volume histograms were compared between the two sets. Results: In each patient, coverage of breast tissue and tumor bed was readily achieved by either technique. In either position, treatment of the nodal regions was inadequate. On average, the mean dose to the nodal regions for levels I-III was similar to 50% less in the prone as compared with the supine position. The mean ipsilateral lung volume receiving 95% of the prescribed dose was 6.3% in the supine position compared to 0.43% in the prone position. When planned supine, the mean heart volume receiving 30 Gy was 0.56% compared with 0.30% in the prone position. Conclusions: Planning in either position was found to achieve adequate coverage of the breast tissue and tumor bed for all patients. Lung was better spared prone. Coverage of axillary nodes was inadequate in either position, but further reduced in the prone vs. supine position. The choice of optimal setup should take into considerations stage and risk of nodal recurrence. (c) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available