Helical Tomotherapy of the breast: can thermoplastic immobilization improve the reproducibility of the treatment setup and the accuracy of the delivered dose?

Use of immobilisation bra for daily setup of patients with pendulous breasts undergoing radiotherapy

PURPOSE

A feasibility study to evaluate the Chabner XRT® Radiation Bra (CIVCO Radiotherapy & Qfix, Coralville, IA, USA) as a customised immobilisation device for patients with pendulous breasts undergoing radiotherapy was conducted.

METHODS

A total of 34 patients with large pendulous breasts were fitted with the Chabner XRT® Radiation Bra during RT. A mixed-method questionnaire was administered to both radiation therapists (RTTs) and patients. RTTs evaluated the effectiveness of the bra in setup. Patients appraised its comfort level and ease of wearing. Setup reproducibility was evaluated based on a departmental imaging protocol. Acute skin side effects were documented with photos and assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) classification.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 27 (79.4%) completed the questionnaire. 23 patients felt comfortable wearing the bra while 20 felt less exposed during treatment. Reproducibility was acceptable, with a median (range) setup error (isocentre) of 0.0 cm (-0.6 to 0.7 cm; left/right), -0.1 cm (-0.5 to 1.2 cm; posterior) and 0.2 cm (-0.5 to 0.9 cm; inferior) achieved based on matched field borders on skin. However, repeated setups and imaging were required for 3 patients due to large breast size (cups D-G; size 4-5). Minimal skin toxicity (grade 0-1) was observed. No grade ≥ 2 was reported. 10 RTTs completed the survey. Male RTTs (n = 4) were not confident in assisting patients with bra fitting. 8 RTTs agreed that although it was difficult to reproduce the breast tissue for treatment, it helped patients to maintain the treatment position.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated the feasibility of using a customised bra which provided optimal setup reproducibility while maintaining minimal skin toxicity and patient comfort, especially the value-added modesty felt among Asian women during their breast cancer radiotherapy.

Factors impacting on patient setup analysis and error management during breast cancer radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is required to deliver an accurate dose to the tumor while protecting surrounding normal tissues. Breast cancer radiotherapy involves a number of factors that can influence patient setup and error management, including the immobilization device used, the verification system and the patient's treatment position. The aim of this review is to compile and discuss the setup errors that occur due to the above-mentioned factors. In view of this, a systematic search of the scientific literature in the Medline/PubMed databases was performed over the 1990-2021 time period, with 93 articles found to be relevant for the study. To be accessible to all, this study not only aims to identify factors impacting on patient setup analysis, but also seeks to evaluate the role of each verification device, board immobilization and position in influencing these errors.

Clinical utility of a new immobilization method in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for breast cancer patients after radical mastectomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate clinical utility of a new immobilization method in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for breast cancer patients after radical mastectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients with breast cancer who underwent radical mastectomy and postoperative IMRT were prospectively enrolled. The patients were randomly and equally divided into two groups using both a carbon-fiber support board and a hollowed-out cervicothoracic thermoplastic mask (Group A) and using only the board (Group B). An iSCOUT image-guided system was used for acquiring and correcting pretreatment setup errors for each treatment fraction. Initial setup errors and residual errors were obtained by aligning iSCOUT images with digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) images generated from planning CT. Totally 600 initial and residual errors were compared and analyzed between two groups, and the planning target volume (PTV) margins before and after the image-guided correction were calculated.

RESULTS

The initial setup errors of Group A and Group B were (3.14±3.07), (2.21±1.92), (2.45±1.92) mm and (3.14±2.97), (2.94±3.35), (2.80±2.47) mm in the left-right (LAT), superior-inferior (LONG), anterior-posterior (VERT) directions, respectively. The initial errors in Group A were smaller than those in Group B in the LONG direction (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the distribution of three initial error ranges (≤3 mm, 3-5 mm and > 5 mm) in each of the three translational directions for the two groups (P > 0.05). The residual errors of Group A and Group B were (1.74±1.03), (1.62±0.92), (1.66±0.91) mm and (1.70±0.97), (1.68±1.18), (1.58±0.98) mm in the three translational directions, respectively. No significant difference was found in the residual errors between two groups (P > 0.05). With the image-guided correction, PTV margins were reduced from 8.01, 5.44, 5.45 mm to 3.54, 2.99, 2.89 mm in three translational directions of Group A, respectively, and from 8.14, 10.89, 6.29 mm to 2.67, 3.64, 2.74 mm in those of Group B, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of hollowed-out cervicothoracic thermoplastic masks combined with a carbon-fiber support board showed better inter-fraction immobilization than the single use of the board in reducing longitudinal setup errors for breast cancer patients after radical mastectomy during IMRT treatment course, which has potential to reduce setup errors and improve the pretreatment immobilization accuracy for breast cancer IMRT after radical mastectomy.

Comparing Accuracy of Thermoplastic Mask versus Commercial Bra for the Immobilization of Pendulous Breast During Radiation Therapy Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

This study aimed to compare thermoplastic mask with bra in terms of setup reproducibility and immobilization of pendulous breasts during radiation therapy (RT).

Methods and materials

Forty-two female patients with breast cancer treated with either intensity modulated RT or 3-dimensional conformal RT were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 21 benefited from thermoplastic mask immobilization and 21 used a bra. Setup accuracy was evaluated using consecutive cone beam computed tomography/electronic portal imaging device sessions over the first 3 days before treatment (systematic setting), followed by weekly cone beam computed tomography/electronic portal imaging device (random settings), and compared with the reference image to calculate the corresponding translational shift (setup error) in the 3 planes. Average absolute shift values in both systematic and random settings were compared between the 2 groups. Accuracy was analyzed by comparing the percentage of pooled settings within ±0.05 and ±0.1 cm of the reference image.

Results

Compared with a bra, use of the mask was associated with a smaller longitudinal shift in systematic settings (difference in mean: 0.27 cm; P = .027; Mann-Whitney U test) and a lesser lateral shift in random setting (difference in mean: 0.19 cm; P = .005; Mann-Whitney U test). In the pooled systematic settings, the mask performed relatively better than the bra in the lateral and longitudinal planes, with no statistical significance. In pooled random settings, mask showed greater accuracy than bra in the lateral plane with 86.0% versus 58.9% accuracy at ±0.5 cm (P < .001) and 48.8% versus 21.7% accuracy at ±0.1 cm (P < .001), respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of radiodermatitis between the 2 groups. However, a hypofractionation regimen was associated with a lower incidence of radiodermatitis, and the severity of skin reactions was positively correlated with treatment dose (unstandardized regression coefficient: B = .001; correlation coefficient: r = .571; P < .001).

Conclusions

Masks provide superior reproducibility compared with commercially available bras.

TomoMQA: Automated analysis program for MVCT quality assurance of helical tomotherapy

Purpose

In this study, we developed a simple but useful computer program, called TomoMQA, to offer an automated quality assurance for mega‐voltage computed tomography (MVCT) images generated via helical tomotherapy.

Methods

TomoMQA is written in MATLAB and contains three steps for analysis: (a) open the DICOM dataset folder generated via helical tomotherapy (i.e., TomoTherapy^® and Radixact™), (b) call the baseline data for the consistency test and click the “Analysis” button (or click the “Analysis” button without the baseline data and export the results as the baseline data), and (c) print an analyzed report. The overall procedure for the QA analysis included in TomoMQA is referred from the TG‐148 recommendation. Here, the tolerances for MVCT QA were implemented from TG‐148 recommended values as default; however, it can be modified by a user manually.

Results

To test the performance of the TomoMQA program, 15 MVCTs were prepared from five helical tomotherapy machines (1 of TomoTherapy^® HD, 2 of TomoTherapy^® HDA, and 2 of Radixact™) in 3 months and the QA procedures were performed using TomoMQA. From our results, the evaluation revealed that the developed program can successfully perform the MVCT QA analysis irrespective of the type of helical tomotherapy equipment.

Conclusion

We successfully developed a new automated analysis program for MVCT QA of a helical tomotherapy platform, called TomoMQA. The developed program will be made freely downloadable from the TomoMQA‐dedicated website.

Comparison among four immobilization devices for whole breast irradiation with Helical Tomotherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the repositioning accuracy of 4 immobilization devices (ID) used for whole breast Helical Tomotherapy treatments: arm float with VacFix® (Par Scientific, Denmark), all-in-one® (AIO®) system (Orfit, Belgium), MacroCast thermoplastic mask (Macromedics, The Netherlands) and BlueBag® system with Arm-Shuttle (Elekta, Sweden).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty four women with breast cancer with PTV including the breast/chest wall and lymph nodes were involved in this study (6 women per group). Pretreatment registration results were first collected using automatic bone registration + manual adjustment on the vertebra followed by independent registrations on different ROIs representing each treated area (axillary, mammary chain, clavicular, breast/chest wall). The differences in translations and rotations between reference registration and the above mentionned ROIs were calculated. A total of 120 MVCT images were analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between IDs (p < 0.0001), ROIs (p = 0.0002) and the session number (p < 0.0001) on the observed shifts, when examining 3D translation vectors. 3D-vectors were significantly lower for the BlueBag® than for the VacFix® or for the AIO® (p < 0.0001), but differences were not significant compared to the mask (p = 0.674). Finally, setup margins were overall smaller for the BlueBag® than for other IDs, with values ranging from 1.53 to 1.91 mm on the mammary chain area, 4.52-6.07 mm on the clavicular area, 2.71-4.62 mm on the axillary area, and 3.39-5.10 mm on the breast.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated in this study that the BlueBag® combined with arm shuttle is a robust solution for breast and nodes immobilization during HT treatments.

The heterogeneous CTV-PTV margins should be given for different parts of tumors during tomotherapy

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate CTV-PTV margins of tumors for tomotherapy.

Methods

Setup errors were analyzed for 151 patients receiving helical tomotherapy treatment. 53 patients had head and neck tumors, 45 had thoracic tumors, 20 had abdominal tumors, and 33 had pelvic tumors. The setup errors were calculated in six directions, i.e. +X (left), -X (right), +Y (head), -Y (foot), +Z (ventral), and -Z (dorsal), after Megavoltage CT (MVCT) images were registered to simulation CT images. And then the CTV-PTV margins were calculated.

Results

The setup errors along the +Z direction were significantly higher than that along the –Z direction (p<0.05). The CTV-PTV margins on +X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z, and -Z directions were asymmetric for all tumors, and the heterogeneity were more remarkable on the +Z and –Z directions. The CTV-PTV margins on +Z and –Z were 4.1 mm, 4.6 mm, 5.2 mm, and 8.4 mm; and 3.9 mm, 7.7 mm, 3.3 mm, and 7.7 mm for head and neck tumors, thoracic tumors, abdominal tumors, and pelvic tumors, respectively.

Conclusions

The CTV-PTV margins for patients with different types of tumors were heterogeneous during tomotherapy. The individual margins of six directions should be given for those patients who accept tomotherapy.

Cardiac-sparing radiation therapy using positioning breast shell for patients with left-sided breast cancer who are ineligible for breath-hold techniques

Purpose

Patients with left-sided breast cancer (LSBC) are at increased risk of cardiac morbidity from adjuvant breast radiation therapy (ABRT). Breath-hold (BH) techniques substantially reduce the radiation received by heart during radiation therapy for LSBC. However, a subset of patients with LSBC are ineligible for BH techniques due to an inability to breath-hold or because of other comorbidities. To reduce radiation to the heart, we routinely use a custom-made breast shell for the treatment of patients with LSBC who are ineligible for BH techniques. This study evaluates the dosimetric impact of using a breast shell for patients with LSBC undergoing ABRT.

Methods and materials

Sixteen consecutive patients with LSBC who failed BH and underwent ABRT using a breast shell during the period of 2014 to 2016 were identified. Treatment was planned using field-in-field tangents with a prescribed dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. Comparisons between plans with and without a shell were made for each patient using a paired t test to quantify the sparing of organs at risk (OARs) and target coverage.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the planning target volume of breast coverage. A statistically significant improvement was observed in sparing the heart, left ventricle (LV), and ipsilateral lung (P-value < .001). Plans with the shell spared OARs better than the no-shell plans with a mean dose of 2.15 Gy versus 5.15 Gy (58.2% reduction) to the heart, 3.27 Gy versus 9.00 Gy (63.7% reduction) to the LV, and 5.16 Gy versus 7.95 Gy (35% reduction) to the ipsilateral lung. The irradiated volumes of OARs for plans with and without shell are 13.3 cc versus 59.5 cc (77.6% reduction) for the heart, 6.2 cc versus 33.2 cc (81.2% reduction) for the LV, and 92.8 cc versus 162.5 cc (42.9% reduction) for the ipsilateral lung.

Conclusions

A positioning breast shell offers significant benefit in terms of sparing the heart for patients with LSBC who are ineligible for BH techniques. It also can be used as a simple cardiac-sparing alternative in centers without BH capability.