Influence of a vac-fix immobilization device on the accuracy of patient positioning during routine breast 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.

Improvement of matching fields using coplanar field border method in postmastectomy radiotherapy

Aim:

To propose a new matching method for the supraclavicular (SC) and tangential fields on three-dimensional radiotherapy (3DRT) for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).

Methods:

A method of matching coplanar field borders (CFB) between the tangential and SC fields was created in 3DRT. The collimator angle of the medial tangential field was calculated to coplanar the SC field. The proposed method performance was ultimately benchmarked using the half beam block (HBB) and traditional three-field monoisocenter (TTM) methods by dosimetric comparison. The decision score was then employed to clarify the performance among these methods.

Results:

The results show that the TTM method exhibited not only low doses on the organs at risk (OAR) but also on the matching fields. The CFB and HBB produced comparable results, but the ipsilateral lung yielded lesser amounts than the HBB. The decision score indicated a low performance level when using the TTM method, whereas the CBF method exhibited a slightly higher performance score than the HBB.

Findings:

The CFB exhibited good performance in terms of the dose on OARs and at the matching fields. This method offers a comparable level of performance to the HBB. Thus, the CFB offers an alternative method of significant interest in PMRT.

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.

Dosimetric and isocentric variations due to patient setup errors in CT-based treatment planning for breast cancer by electronic portal imaging

BACKGROUND

Inaccuracies in treatment setup during radiation therapy for breast cancers may increase risks to surrounding normal tissue toxicities, i.e. organs at risks (OARs), and compromise disease control. This study was planned to evaluate the dosimetric and isocentric variations and determine setup reproducibility and errors using an online electronic portal imaging (EPI) protocol.

METHODS

A total of 360 EPIs in 60 patients receiving breast/chest wall irradiation were evaluated. Cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed for mean doses to lung (V20) and heart (V30), setup source to surface distance (SSD) and central lung distance (CLD), and shifts in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and medial lateral (ML) directions.

RESULTS

Random errors ranged from 2 to 3 mm for the breast/chest wall (medial and lateral) tangential treatments and 2-2.5 mm for the anterior supraclavicular nodal field. Systematic errors ranged from 3 to 5 mm in the AP direction for the tangential fields and from 2.5 to 5 mm in the SI and ML direction for the anterior supraclavicular nodal field. For right-sided patients, V20 was 0.69-3.96 Gy, maximum lung dose was 40.5 Gy, V30 was 1.4-3 Gy, and maximum heart dose was 50.5 Gy. Similarly, for left-sided patients, the CLD (treatment planning system) was 25 mm-30 mm, CLD (EPIs) was 30-40 mm, V20 was 0.9-5.9 Gy, maximum lung dose was 45 Gy, V30 was 2.4-4.1 Gy, and maximum heart dose was 55 Gy.

CONCLUSION

Online assessment of patient position with matching of EPIs with digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) is a useful method in evaluation of interfraction reproducibility in breast irradiation.

Safety and benefit of using a virtual bolus during treatment planning for breast cancer treated with arc therapy

Purpose

This study evaluates the benefit of a virtual bolus method for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan optimization to compensate breast modifications that may occur during breast treatment.

Methods

Ten files were replanned with VMAT giving 50 Gy to the breast and 47 Gy to the nodes within 25 fractions. The planning process used a virtual bolus for the first optimization, then the monitors units were reoptimized without bolus, after fixing the segments shapes. Structures and treatment planning were exported on a second scanner (CT) performed during treatment as a consequence to modifications in patient's anatomy. The comparative end‐point was clinical target volume's coverage. The first analysis compared the VMAT plans made using the virtual bolus method (VB‐VMAT) to the plans without using it (NoVB‐VMAT) on the first simulation CT. Then, the same analysis was performed on the second CT. Finally, the level of degradation of target volume coverage between the two CT using VB‐VMAT was compared to results using a standard technique of forward‐planned multisegment technique (Tan‐IMRT).

Results

Using a virtual bolus for VMAT does not degrade dosimetric results on the first CT. No significant result in favor of the NoVB‐VMAT plans was noted. The VB‐VMAT method led to significant better dose distribution on a second CT with modified anatomies compared to NoVB‐VMAT. The clinical target volume's coverage by 95% (V95%) of the prescribed dose was 98.9% [96.1–99.6] on the second CT for VB‐VMAT compared to 92.6% [85.2–97.7] for NoVB‐VMAT (P = 0.0002). The degradation of the target volume coverage for VB‐VMAT is not worse than for Tan‐IMRT: the median differential of V95% between the two CT was 0.9% for VMAT and 0.7% for Tan‐IMRT (P = 1).

Conclusion

This study confirms the safety and benefit of using a virtual bolus during the VMAT planning process to compensate potential breast shape modifications.

Comparison of set-up errors by breast size on wing board by portal imaging

AIM

To quantify and compare setup errors between small and large breast patients undergoing intact breast radiotherapy.

METHODS

20 patients were inducted. 10 small/moderate size breast in arm I and 10 large breast in arm II. Two orthogonal and one lateral tangent portal images (PIs) were obtained and analyzed for systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors. Effect of no action level (NAL) was also evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

142 PIs were analyzed. Σ(mm) was 3.2 versus 6.7 (p = 0.41) in the mediolateral (ML) direction, 2.1 versus 2.9 (p = 0.06) in the craniocaudal (CC) and 2.2 versus 3.6 (p = 0.08) in the anteroposterior (AP) direction in small and large breast, respectively. σ(mm) was 3.0, 3.3 and 3.3 for small breast and 4.1, 3.7 and 3.2 for large breast in the ML, CC and AP direction (p = 0.07, 0.86, 0.37), respectively. 3 D Σ(mm) was 2.7 versus 4.2 (p = 0.01) and σ(mm) was 2.5 versus 3.2 (p = 0.14) in arm I and II, respectively. The standard deviation (SD) of variations (mm) in breast contour depicted by central lung distance (CLD) was 5.9 versus 7.4 (p < 0.001), central flash distance (CFD) 6.6 versus 10.5 (p = 0.002), inferior central margin (ICM) 4 versus 4.9 (p < 0.001) in arm I and II, respectively. NAL showed a significant reduction of systematic error in large breast in the mediolateral direction only.

CONCLUSION

Wing board can be used in a busy radiotherapy department for setting up breast patients with a margin of 1.1 cm, 0.76 cm and 0.71 cm for small breasts and 1.96 cm, 1.12 cm and 0.98 cm for large breast in the ML, AP and CC directions, respectively. The large PTV margin in the mediolateral direction in large breast can be reduced using NAL. Further research is needed to optimize positioning of large breasted women.

Influence of Individualized Stabilization on the Consistency of Supraclavicular Fossa Positioning in Breast Radiation Therapy: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The accurate stabilization of breast patients who are also undergoing supraclavicular fossa treatment is essential and can be challenging. Discrepancy in setup error for these patients often lies with the position of the clavicle in relationship with other anatomic structures. This study was performed to assess how individualized stabilization can improve patient's stability and reproducibility.

METHODS

Thirty patients stabilized with an individualized vacfix located on a Civco wing board (Civco Medical Solutions, Kalona, IA) were compared with 30 patients stabilized in the traditional manner on a Civco breast board (Civco Medical Solutions). Each of these patients underwent daily imaging using the Varian Clinac iX On-board Imaging System (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), and image mismatch data for each session were collected. Additionally, the relationship between the clavicle and vertebrae was assessed for each stabilization solution on a daily basis. Statistical analysis of this data was then performed using a mixed effects approach to take account of data grouping by patient specifically for the displacement error in each direction.

RESULTS

The use of an individualized vacfix decreased the overall systematic and random setup errors and displayed a reduction in the standard deviation of setup error. Patients positioned using breast board stabilization with the clavicle as the match method were exposed in the longitudinal direction to a systematic error of a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.6-4.5 mm and a random error of a 95% CI of 2.7-3.2 mm. This was significantly reduced for vacfix stabilization with a systematic error of a 95% CI of 1.2-2.3 mm and a random error of a 95% CI of 1.8-2.3 mm. These data amount to a reduction of the systematic error by 40% (P = .02) and a random error by 25% (P = .003) when using the vacfix method compared with the breast board. The data displaying the relationship between the clavicle and other anatomy within the treatment volume appear to be more consistent with the individualized vacfix approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducible and consistent stabilization for the breast/supraclavicular fossa technique is vital in terms of ensuring accurate patient position. Analysis of the setup error for clavicle and spinous process matching strongly indicates a reduction in both the systematic and random setup error achieved by the vacfix. This illustrates the increased stability and reproducibility of patient positioning when an individualized vacfix is used.

Simulation of dose to surrounding normal structures in tangential breast radiotherapy due to setup error

Setup error plays a significant role in the final treatment outcome in radiotherapy. The effect of setup error on the planning target volume (PTV) and surrounding critical structures has been studied and the maximum allowed tolerance in setup error with minimal complications to the surrounding critical structure and acceptable tumor control probability is determined. Twelve patients were selected for this study after breast conservation surgery, wherein 8 patients were right-sided and 4 were left-sided breast. Tangential fields were placed on the 3-dimensional-computed tomography (3D-CT) dataset by isocentric technique and the dose to the PTV, ipsilateral lung (IL), contralateral lung (CLL), contralateral breast (CLB), heart, and liver were then computed from dose-volume histograms (DVHs). The planning isocenter was shifted for 3 and 10 mm in all 3 directions (X, Y, Z) to simulate the setup error encountered during treatment. Dosimetric studies were performed for each patient for PTV according to ICRU 50 guidelines: mean doses to PTV, IL, CLL, heart, CLB, liver, and percentage of lung volume that received a dose of 20 Gy or more (V20); percentage of heart volume that received a dose of 30 Gy or more (V30); and volume of liver that received a dose of 50 Gy or more (V50) were calculated for all of the above-mentioned isocenter shifts and compared to the results with zero isocenter shift. Simulation of different isocenter shifts in all 3 directions showed that the isocentric shifts along the posterior direction had a very significant effect on the dose to the heart, IL, CLL, and CLB, which was followed by the lateral direction. The setup error in isocenter should be strictly kept below 3 mm. The study shows that isocenter verification in the case of tangential fields should be performed to reduce future complications to adjacent normal tissues.

Anatomical imaging for radiotherapy

The goal of radiation therapy is to achieve maximal therapeutic benefit expressed in terms of a high probability of local control of disease with minimal side effects. Physically this often equates to the delivery of a high dose of radiation to the tumour or target region whilst maintaining an acceptably low dose to other tissues, particularly those adjacent to the target. Techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery and computer planned brachytherapy provide the means to calculate the radiation dose delivery to achieve the desired dose distribution. Imaging is an essential tool in all state of the art planning and delivery techniques: (i) to enable planning of the desired treatment, (ii) to verify the treatment is delivered as planned and (iii) to follow-up treatment outcome to monitor that the treatment has had the desired effect. Clinical imaging techniques can be loosely classified into anatomic methods which measure the basic physical characteristics of tissue such as their density and biological imaging techniques which measure functional characteristics such as metabolism. In this review we consider anatomical imaging techniques. Biological imaging is considered in another article. Anatomical imaging is generally used for goals (i) and (ii) above. Computed tomography (CT) has been the mainstay of anatomical treatment planning for many years, enabling some delineation of soft tissue as well as radiation attenuation estimation for dose prediction. Magnetic resonance imaging is fast becoming widespread alongside CT, enabling superior soft-tissue visualization. Traditionally scanning for treatment planning has relied on the use of a single snapshot scan. Recent years have seen the development of techniques such as 4D CT and adaptive radiotherapy (ART). In 4D CT raw data are encoded with phase information and reconstructed to yield a set of scans detailing motion through the breathing, or cardiac, cycle. In ART a set of scans is taken on different days. Both allow planning to account for variability intrinsic to the patient. Treatment verification has been carried out using a variety of technologies including: MV portal imaging, kV portal/fluoroscopy, MVCT, conebeam kVCT, ultrasound and optical surface imaging. The various methods have their pros and cons. The four x-ray methods involve an extra radiation dose to normal tissue. The portal methods may not generally be used to visualize soft tissue, consequently they are often used in conjunction with implanted fiducial markers. The two CT-based methods allow measurement of inter-fraction variation only. Ultrasound allows soft-tissue measurement with zero dose but requires skilled interpretation, and there is evidence of systematic differences between ultrasound and other data sources, perhaps due to the effects of the probe pressure. Optical imaging also involves zero dose but requires good correlation between the target and the external measurement and thus is often used in conjunction with an x-ray method. The use of anatomical imaging in radiotherapy allows treatment uncertainties to be determined. These include errors between the mean position at treatment and that at planning (the systematic error) and the day-to-day variation in treatment set-up (the random error). Positional variations may also be categorized in terms of inter- and intra-fraction errors. Various empirical treatment margin formulae and intervention approaches exist to determine the optimum strategies for treatment in the presence of these known errors. Other methods exist to try to minimize error margins drastically including the currently available breath-hold techniques and the tracking methods which are largely in development. This paper will review anatomical imaging techniques in radiotherapy and how they are used to boost the therapeutic benefit of the treatment.

Assessment of setup accuracy in patients receiving postmastectomy radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the setup accuracy for patients undergoing postmastectomy radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients undergoing radiotherapy via tangent (TG), supraclavicular-axillary (SA), and internal mammary (IM) fields were included. To explore the setup accuracy, distances between chosen landmarks were taken as reference parameters (RPs). The difference between measured RPs on simulation films and electronic portal images (EPIs) was calculated as the setup error.

RESULTS

A total of 30 simulation films and 120 EPIs were evaluated. In the SA field, calculated RPs were lung length (LL), clavicle-field center perpendicular distance, and clavicle-field center transverse distance. The mean of the standard deviations (SDs) of the random errors (sigma) for these parameters were 4.7, 7.3, and 7.6; and the SDs of the systematic errors (Sigma) were 6.8, 4.4, and 13.5, respectively. In the TG fields, the calculated RPs were the central lung distance (CLD), maximum lung distance (MLD), and central soft-tissue distance (CSTD). In the medial TG field, the sigma values for these parameters were 3.4, 3.6, and 4.1, respectively; and the sigma values were 6.6, 2.6, and 3.4, respectively. In the lateral TG field, Sigma values for the calculated RPs were 2.4, 3.2, and 3.3l, respectively; and the Sigma values were 5.6, 3.6, and 4.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CLD, MLD, and CSTD in TG fields and LL in SA fields are easily identifiable and are helpful for detecting setup errors using EPIs in patients undergoing postmastectomy radiotherapy.

Breast movement during normal and deep breathing, respiratory training and set up errors: implications for external beam partial breast irradiation

This study was designed to evaluate interfraction and intrafraction breast movement and to study the effect of respiratory training on respiratory indices. Five patients were immobilized in supine position in a vacuum bag and three-dimensional set up errors, respiratory movement of the breast during normal and deep breathing, tidal volume and breath hold time were recorded. All patients underwent respiratory training and all the respiratory indices were re-evaluated at the end of training. Cumulative maximum movement error (CMME) was calculated by adding directional maximum set up error and maximum post training movement during normal breathing. The mean set up deviation was 1.3 mm (SD +/- 0.5 mm), 1.3 mm (SD +/- 0.3 mm) and 4.4 mm (SD +/- 2.6 mm) in the mediolateral, superoinferior and anteroposterior dimensions. Pre-training mean of the maximum marker movement during normal breathing was 1.07 mm, 1.94 mm and 1.86 mm in the mediolateral, superoinferior and anteroposterior dimensions. During deep breathing these values were 2 mm, 5.5 mm and 4.8 mm. While respiratory training had negligible effect on breast movement during normal breathing, it resulted in a modest reduction during deep breathing (p = 0.2). The mean CMME recorded for these patients was 3.4 mm, 4.5 mm and 7.1 mm in the mediolateral, superoinferior and anteroposterior dimension. Respiratory training also resulted in an increase in breath hold time from a mean of 31 s to 44 s (p = 0.04) and tidal volume from a mean of 560 cm(3) to 1160 cm(3) (p = 0.04). With patients immobilized in the vacuum bag the CMMEs are relatively less. Individualized directional margins may aid in reduction of planning target volume (PTV).

Irradiation du cancer du sein : incertitudes liées aux mouvements respiratoires et au repositionnement

Adjuvant Radiotherapy has been shown to significantly reduce locoregional recurrence but this advantage is associated with increased cardiovascular and pulmonary morbidities. All uncertainties inherent to conformal radiation therapy must be identified in order to increase the precision of treatment; misestimation of these uncertainties increases the potential risk of geometrical misses with, as a consequence, underdosage of the tumor and/or overdosage of healthy tissues. Geometric uncertainties due to respiratory movements or set-up errors are well known. Two strategies have been proposed to limit their effect: quantification of these uncertainties, which are then taken into account in the final calculation of safety margins and/or reduction of respiratory and set-up uncertainties by an efficient immobilization or gating systems. Measured on portal films with two tangential fields, CLD (central lung distance), defined as the distance between the deep field edge and the interior chest wall at the central axis, seems to be the best predictor of set-up uncertainties. Using CLD, estimated mean set-up errors from the literature are 3.8 and 3.2 mm for the systematic and random errors respectively. These depend partly on the type of immobilization device and could be reduced by the use of portal imaging systems. Furthermore, breast is mobile during respiration with motion amplitude as high as 0.8 to 10 mm in the anteroposterior direction. Respiratory gating techniques, currently on evaluation, have the potential to reduce effect of these movements. Each radiotherapy department should perform its own assessments and determine the geometric uncertainties with respect of the equipment used and its particular treatment practices. This paper is a review of the main geometric uncertainties in breast treatment, due to respiration and set-up, and solutions proposed to limit their impact.

Setup variations in locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer: an electronic portal imaging study

Recent trials demonstrating a survival benefit with locoregional radiotherapy (LRRT) to the chest wall and regional nodes in women with node-positive breast cancer have led to increased use of complex techniques to match three or more radiation fields, but information on setup reproducibility with LRRT for breast cancer is scarce. This study reports the magnitude and directions of random and systematic deviations in LRRT for breast cancer using an offline electronic portal imaging verification protocol. Electronic portal images (EPIs) of 46 consecutive women treated with LRRT for breast cancer from March 2001 to February 2002 with LRRT were analysed. Comparisons of EPIs to the corresponding digitally reconstructed radiographs were performed offline with anatomy matching. Displacements in mm were recorded in the superior-inferior (SI), medial-lateral (ML), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Random errors ranged from 2.0 mm to 2.5 mm for the breast/chest wall tangential treatments and 2.3 mm to 3.9 mm for the supraclavicular nodal treatments. Systematic errors occurred to a greater degree in the AP direction for the tangential fields and in the ML direction for the supraclavicular field. Displacements of > or =10 mm were found in 1.2% of breast/chest wall tangential treatments and in 6.2% of supraclavicular nodal treatments. These data demonstrate that EPI is a useful tool to verify setup reproducibility in LRRT for breast cancer.

Reduction of radiotherapy-induced late complications in early breast cancer: the role of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and partial breast irradiation

Radiotherapy after conservation surgery has been proven to decrease local relapse and death from breast cancer, and is now firmly established in the management of early breast carcinoma. Currently, the challenge is to optimise the therapeutic ratio by minimising treatment-related morbidity, while maintaining or improving local control and survival. The second part of this review examines the role of two approaches: intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and partial breast irradiation, as means of improving the therapeutic ratio. Discussion of IMRT includes both inverse- and forward-planned methods: the breast usually requires minimal modulation to improve dose homogeneity, and therefore lends itself to simpler forward-planned IMRT techniques; whereas inverse-planned IMRT may be useful in selected cases. There are many dosimetry studies reporting the superiority of IMRT over conventional breast radiotherapy, but there is still a paucity of clinical data regarding patient benefit from these techniques. A critical literature review of clinical partial breast radiotherapy studies focuses on the influence of irradiated breast volume, dose and fractionation, and patient selection on normal tissue side-effects and local control. Clinical reports of partial breast irradiation show several encouraging, but some concerning results about local recurrence rates. Therefore, mature results from randomised trials comparing partial breast irradiation with whole-breast radiotherapy are required. Accurate localisation of the tumour bed and application of appropriate clinical target volumes and planning target volumes are discussed in detail, as these concepts are fundamental for partial breast irradiation.

A vacuum-formable mattress for veterinary radiotherapy positioning: comparison with conventional methods

This prospective study was undertaken to compare the positioning repeatability and setup time of a rigid immobilization device (Vac-Lok mattress) to conventional positioning methods (sandbags, tape, foam wedges) in the clinical veterinary radiotherapy setting. Positioning repeatability was determined by using port films to verify appropriate patient positioning. Setup time was determined by recording the time required to set up each patient using each positioning method. Sixty-seven patients receiving radiotherapy were positioned using both the Vac-Lok mattresses and conventional positioning methods during their treatments. Seventy-eight total sites were treated. Forty-eight were treated daily (Monday through Friday, 2 to 4 weeks) and 30 were treated once weekly (4 weeks). Patients were grouped according to the site treated: head (29), neck/body (24), and limb (25). Vac-Lok mattresses were similar to conventional means in positioning repeatability and setup time. Vac-Lok mattresses are potentially advantageous in specific situations, including use during pre-radiotherapy tumor imaging. These mattresses are not recommended for distal limb positioning.