Dosimetric evaluation of VMAT and helical tomotherapy techniques comparing conventional volumes with clinical target volumes based on new ESTRO ACROP post-mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction contouring guidelines

Abstract

Background The ESTRO-ACROP Consensus Guideline (EACG) recommends implant excluded clinical target volume (CTVp) definitions for post-mastectomy radiation therapy after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of Helical Tomotherapy (HTp) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMATp) treatment techniques in terms of CTVp coverage and reduced organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue and implant doses when CTVp was used for treatment planning as the target structure instead of conventional CTV. Methods Eight left-sided and eight right-sided breast cancer patients who underwent IBR after mastectomy were included in this study. Planning CT data sets were acquired during free breathing and patients were treated with HT technique targeted to conventional CTV. Retrospectively, CTVp was delineated based on EACG by the same radiation oncologist, and treatment plans with HTp and VMATp techniques were generated based on CTVp. For each patient, relevant dosimetric parameters were obtained from three different treatment plans. Results There was no statistically significant difference on target coverage in terms of, PTVp-D95, PTVp-Vpres, homogeneity index (p > 0.05) between HTp and VMATp plans. But, the conformity numbers were significantly higher (HTp vs VMATp, 0.69 +/- 0.15 vs 0.79 +/- 0.12) for VMATp (Z = - 2.17, p = 0.030). While HTp significantly lowered Dmax and Dmean for LAD (LAD-D-max: chi(2) = 12.25, p = 0.002 and LAD-D-mean: chi(2) = 12.30, p = 0.002), neither HTp nor VMATp could reduce maximum and mean dose to heart (p > 0.05). Furthermore, heart volume receiving 5 Gy was significantly higher for VMATp when compared to HTp (21.2 +/- 9.8 vs 42.7 +/- 24.8, p: 0.004). Both techniques succeeded in reducing the mean dose to implant (HTp vs HT, p < 0.001

VMATp vs HT, p < 0.001

VMATp vs HTp, p = 0.005). Conclusion Both HTp and VMATp techniques succeeded to obtain conformal and homogeneous dose distributions within CTVp while reducing the mean implant dose. HTp was found to be superior to VMATp with regards to lowering all OAR doses except for CB.