Accelerated partial breast irradiation using external beam radiotherapy—A feasibility study based on dosimetric analysis

AimTo investigate the feasibility of using External Beam radiotherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation by a comparative tumour and normal tissue dose volume analysis with that of high dose rate interstitial brachytherapy.BackgroundAccelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) is more clinically appealing because of the reduced treatment course duration and the irradiated area. Brachytherapy application is more dependent on the clinician's expertise when it is practised free hand without image guidance and a template. It happens to be an invasive procedure with the use of local anaesthesia which adds patient discomfort apart from its cost compared to External Beam Radiotherapy. But APBI with brachytherapy is more commonly practised procedure compared to EBRT owing to its previous reults. Hence in this research study, we intend to explore the use of EBRT with the radiobiological corrections for APBI in the place of brachytherapy. It is done as a dosimetric comparison of Brachytherapy treatment plans with that of EBRT plans.Materials and methodsThe computed tomography images of 15 patients undergoing ISBT planning were simulated with conformal photon fields. Various dose volume parameters of each structure were obtained from the DVH generated in the brachytherapy and the simulated external beam planning which can correlate well with the late toxicity. The plan quality indices such as conformity index and homogeneity index for the target volume were computed from the dosimetric factors. The statistical p values for CI, HI and normal tissue dosimetric parameters were calculated and the confidence levels achievable were analysed. The dose prescribed in brachytherapy was 3400cGy in ten fractions. The equivalent prescription dose for the external beam radiotherapy planning was 3000cGy in five fractions applied with radiobiological correction.ResultsAll the fifteen patients were with complete lung data and six were with left sided tumours having complete cardiac data. The lung dosimetry data and the cardiac dosimetry data of the patients were studied. Lower percentages of lung and cardiac V20 and V5 volumes were obtained with conformal planning. The conformity of radiation dose to the tumour volume was akin to the interstitial brachytherapy planning. Moreover the external beam planning resulted in more homogenous dose distribution. For the sampled population, the statistical analysis showed a confidence level of 95% for using EBRT as an alternate to multi catheter ISBT.ConclusionThe EBRT planning for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation was found to be technically feasible in the institution where the interstitial brachytherapy happens to be the only available technique as evident from the dose volume parameters and the statistical analysis

Dosimetric comparison of manual forward planning with uniform dwell times versus volume-based inverse planning in interstitial brachytherapy of cervical malignancies

AimDosimetic comparison of manual forward planning(MFP) with inverse planning(IP) for interstitial brachytherapy(ISBT) in cervical carcinoma.BackgroundBrachytherapy planning by MFP is more reliable but time-consuming method, whereas IP has been explored more often for its ease and rapidness. The superiority of either is yet to be established.MethodologyTwo plans were created on data sets of 24 patients of cervical carcinoma who had undergone ISBT, one by MFP with uniform dwell times and another IP on BrachyVision 13.7 planning system with a dose prescription of 600 cGy. Isodose shaper was used for improving conformity & homogeneity. Dosimetric parameters for target and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded. Conformity index (COIN), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), Coverage index (CI) and dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) were calculated.ResultsMean high risk clinical target volume: 73.05(±20.7)cc, D90: 5.51 Gy vs. 5.6 Gy (p = 0.017), V100: 81.77 % vs. 83.74 % (p = 0.002), V150: 21.7 % vs. 24.93 % (p = 0.002), V200: 6.3 % vs. 6.4 % (p=0.75) for IP and MFP, respectively. CI: 0.81(IP) and 0.83(MFP) (p = 0.003); however, COIN was 0.79 for both plans. D2cc of OARs was statistically better with IP (bladder 54.7 % vs. 56.1 %, p = 0.03; rectum 63 % vs. 64.7 %, (p = 0.0008).ConclusionBoth MFP and IP are equally acceptable dosimetrically. With higher dose achieved to the target, for a similar OAR dose, MFP provides greater user flexibility of dwell positions within the target as well as better optimization. Isodose shaper may be carefully used for fine tuning. Larger sample sizes and clinical correlation will better answer the superiority of one over the other