Comparing the Absorbed Dose of the Contralateral Breast between Physical Stationary and Motorized Wedged Fields Radiotherapy Techniques
,
Abstract
Purpose: The breast is a radiosensitive organ and it is important to prevent the Contralateral Breast (CLB) from irradiation in radiotherapy. In this study, the received dose of CLB was calculated and compared between two breast radiotherapy techniques, including physical stationary and motorized wedged fields.
Materials and Methods: Forty female patients undergoing breast radiotherapy with supraclavicular involvement were randomly selected. Twenty were treated with the tangential fields using physical wedges and twenty patients were treated with the tangential fields using motorized wedges. Three thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD GR-200) were placed on the CLB skin to estimate the breast dose. Dosimetric parameters for target tissue and organs at risk (OARs) were obtained from the plans of the evaluated techniques and compared to find the differences. CLB doses were compared between the radiotherapy techniques using an independent T-test.
Results: There were no significant differences in the target tissue and OARs dosimetric parameters between the evaluated radiotherapy techniques. The results showed that the measured CLB skin doses in patients treated with the motorized wedges were significantly higher than the physical wedge radiotherapy technique, 201.5±20.4 mGy vs. 159.8 ±14.2 mGy (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The physical wedged fields technique had lower doses for CLB compared to the fields using motorized wedges. Therefore, it can be proposed to use tangential physical wedged fields for patients with high concern about the CLB. Furthermore, more research considering radiotherapy techniques without using wedges in medial tangent fields and other relevant parameters can be performed to obtain a better evaluation of the CLB dose.
2. Firouzjah RA, Banaei A, Farhood B, Bakhshandeh M. Dosimetric comparison of four different techniques for supraclavicular irradiation in 3D-conformal radiotherapy of breast cancer. Health physics. 2019;116(5):631–636.
3. Nadi S, Abedi-Firouzjah R, Banaei A, Bijari S, Elahi M. Dosimetric comparison of level II lymph nodes between mono-isocentric and dual-isocentric approaches in 3D-CRT and IMRT techniques in breast radiotherapy of mastectomy patients. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice. 2020;19(3):254–258.
4. Ansari L, Nasiri N, Aminolroayaei F, Sani KG, Dorri-Giv M, Abedi-Firouzjah R, et al. The measurement of thyroid absorbed dose by gafchromicTM EBT2 film and changes in thyroid hormone levels following radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Journal of medical signals and sensors. 2020;10(1):42.
5. Group EBCTC. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10 801 women in 17 randomised trials. The Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707–1716.
6. Majdaeen M, Kazemian A, Babaei M, Haddad P, Hashemi FA. Concomitant boost chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: Treatment tolerance and acute side effects. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2015;11(1):24–28.
7. Bagheri H, Firouzjah RA, Farhood B. Measurement of the photon and thermal neutron doses of contralateral breast surface in breast cancer radiotherapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice. 2020;19(3):226–232.
8. Huang JY, Followill DS, Wang XA, Kry SF. Accuracy and sources of error of out-of field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2013;14(2):186–197.
9. Tubiana M. Can we reduce the incidence of second primary malignancies occurring after radiotherapy? A critical review. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2009;91(1):4–15.
10. Bilge H, Ozbek N, Okutan M, Cakir A, Acar H. Surface dose and build-up region measurements with wedge filters for 6 and 18 MV photon beams. Japanese journal of radiology. 2010;28:110–116.
11. Banaei A, Hashemi B, Bakhshandeh M. Comparing the monoisocentric and dual isocentric techniques in chest wall radiotherapy of mastectomy patients. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2015;16(1):130–138.
12. Vetter RJ. ICRP Publication 103, The recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. LWW; 2008.
13. Rather SA, Haq MM ul, Khan NA, Khan AA, Sofi AG. Determining the contralateral breast dose during radiotherapy of breast cancer using rainbow dosimeter. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2014;7(4):384–389.
14. Bouzarjomehri F, Yazdi MR. A comparison of contralateral breast dose due to breast cancer radiotherapy using two different treatment machines in a radiotherapy center. International Journal of Radiation Research. 2017;15(3):295–299.
15. Prescribing I. recording, and reporting intensity-modulated photon-beam therapy (IMRT)(ICRU Report 83). J ICRU. 2010;10(1):555–559.
16. Cui H, Tang K. An improved method for the computerised analysis of GR-200A LiF: Mg, Cu, P TL signals. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2018;182(2):184–189.
17. Altaf W, Taha MT, Hassan RA, Bahashwan YM. Calibration of TLD in Eye Lens Dosimeter Hp (3) Using Wide Energy X-Ray. J Nucl Technol Appl Sci Online. 2017;5:87–94.
18. Izewska J, Novotny J, Van Dam J, Dutreix A, Van der Schueren E. The influence of the IAEA standard holder on dose evaluated from TLD samples. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1996;41(3):465.
19. Thorne MC. ICRP publication 60: 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection: Annals of the ICRP, 21 (1–3), 1991. Pergamon; 1992.
20. Raffi JA, Davis SD, Hammer CG, Micka JA, Kunugi KA, Musgrove JE, et al. Determination of exit skin dose for intracavitary accelerated partial breast irradiation with thermoluminescent dosimeters. Medical physics. 2010;37(6Part1):2693–2702.
21. Majdaeen M, Refahi S, Banaei A, Ghadimi M, Ardekani MA, Goushbolagh NA, et al. A comparison of skin dose estimation between thermoluminescent dosimeter and treatment planning system in prostatic cancer: A brachytherapy technique. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research. 2021;7(1):77.
22. Majdaeen M, Dorri-Giv M, Olfat S, Ataei G, Abedi-Firouzjah R, Banaei A, et al. Skin dose measurement and estimating the dosimetric effect of applicator misplacement in gynecological brachytherapy: A patient and phantom study. Journal of X-ray Science and Technology. 2021;29(5):917–929.
23. Heydari F, Sardari D. How Radiotherapy for Cancerous Breast may put the Opposite non-Cancerous Breast at Risk. In: International Conference on Earth, Environment and Life sciences (EELS-2014) December. 2014. p. 23–24.
24. Faaruq S, Mehnaz, Kakakhail B, Rehman S ur. Comparison of Contra lateral Breast & Chest wall doses during Radiotherapy of Ca-Breast (with mastectomy) using Co-60 machine and 6 MV LINAC. In: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7-12, 2009, Munich, Germany: Vol 25/1 Radiation Oncology. Springer; 2009. p. 330–333.
25. Videtic GM, Vassil AD, Woody NM. Handbook of treatment planning in radiation oncology. Springer Publishing Company; 2020.
26. Williams TM, Moran JM, Hsu SH, Marsh R, Yanke B, Fraass BA, et al. Contralateral breast dose after whole-breast irradiation: an analysis by treatment technique. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2012;82(5):2079–2085.
27. Bhatnagar AK, Brandner E, Sonnik D, Wu A, Kalnicki S, Deutsch M, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces the dose to the contralateral breast when compared to conventional tangential fields for primary breast irradiation: initial report. The Cancer Journal. 2004;10(6):381–385.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Articles in Press | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Absorbed Dose Contralateral Breast Radiotherapy Thermoluminescent Dosimeters | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
