Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves based on the metastatic lymph node ratio (MLR) and the number of positive lymph nodes (pN).

<p>Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves based on the metastatic lymph node ratio (MLR) and the number of positive lymph nodes (pN).</p

Cumulative survival of patients stratified by the number of lymph node metastases (pN).

<p>Cumulative survival of patients stratified by the number of lymph node metastases (pN).</p

Cumulative survival of patients stratified by metastatic lymph node ratio (MLR).

<p>Cumulative survival of patients stratified by metastatic lymph node ratio (MLR).</p

Dose volume histogram of the target volume coverage and normal organs in VMAT (medium solid), IMRT (medium dashed), and IMRT-EB (thin solid).

<p>Dose volume histogram of the target volume coverage and normal organs in VMAT (medium solid), IMRT (medium dashed), and IMRT-EB (thin solid).</p

Dosimetric Comparison of the Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Whole-Breast Irradiation after Breast-Conserving Surgery: IMRT, IMRT plus an Electron Boost and VMAT

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>To compare the target volume coverage and doses to organs at risks (OARs) using three techniques that simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in whole-breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), IMRT plus an electron boost (IMRT-EB), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A total of 10 patients with early-stage left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery were included in this study. IMRT, IMRT-EB and VMAT plans were generated for each patient.</p><p>Results</p><p>The conformity index (CI) of the planning target volumes evaluation (PTV-Eval) of VMAT was significantly superior to those of IMRT and IMRT-EB (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The CI of the PTV Eval-boost of VMAT was better than that of IMRT (<i>P</i> = 0.018) and IMRT-EB (<i>P</i> < 0.001), while the CI of the PTV Eval-boost of IMRT was better than that of IMRT-EB (<i>P</i> = 0.002). The V5, V10 and Dmean in ipsilateral lung with VMAT were significantly higher than IMRT (<i>P</i> < 0.05) and IMRT-EB (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The Dmean, V5 and V10 in heart with VMAT were significantly greater than those of IMRT and IMRT-EB (<i>P</i> < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the OARs between IMRT and IMRT-EB (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Considered the target volume coverage and radiation dose delivered to the OARs (especially the heart and lung), IMRT may be more suitable for the SIB in WBI than IMRT-EB and VMAT. Additional clinical studies with a larger sample size will be needed to assess the long-term feasibility and efficacy of SIB using different radiotherapy techniques.</p></div

Comparison of PTV and normal tissue for IMRT, IMRT plus an electron boost, and VMAT.

<p>CTV, clinical target volume; PTV, planning target volume; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; VMAT, volumetric-modulated arc therapy; CI, conformity index; HI, homogeneity index (HI); MU, monitor unit.</p><p>Comparison of PTV and normal tissue for IMRT, IMRT plus an electron boost, and VMAT.</p

Beam arrangement, target coverage, and doses to normal organs in VMAT (A), IMRT (B), and IMRT-EB (C).

<p>Beam arrangement, target coverage, and doses to normal organs in VMAT (A), IMRT (B), and IMRT-EB (C).</p

Clinical characteristics of 10 patients.

<p><i>Abbreviations</i>: UIQ = upper inner quadrant, UOQ = upper outer quadrant, LIQ = lower inner quadrant, LOQ = lower outer quadrant.</p><p>Clinical characteristics of 10 patients.</p

The volume of target and normal tissue of 10 patients.

<p>CTV, clinical target volume; PTV, planning target volume.</p><p>The volume of target and normal tissue of 10 patients.</p