Dosimetric Study Comparing 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT), Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric...

Introduction Recently, the one-week hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen (26 Gy in 5 fractions) for adjuvant breast radiotherapy has been shown to be non-inferior to other hypofractionated regimens (15-16 fractions). The aim of the present dosimetric study is to compare Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT), Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for a one-week hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen (26 Gy in 5 fractions) for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. Methods A total of 30 patients with histologically proven invasive carcinoma of the breast after breast conservation surgery (BCS) or modified radical mastectomy (MRM) were considered for in silico planning study. The dose prescription used was 26 Gy in 5 fractions as used in the FAST Forward protocol. Targets were contoured according to standard guidelines. The heart, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral breast were contoured as organs at risk. Results Planning Target Volume (PTV) coverage: For IMRT, VMAT and 3D-CRT, respectively, the volumes that received at least 95% of the prescription dose (V₉₅) were 95.7 ± 2.12, 92.47 ± 3.83, 90.87 ± 5.13; mean PTV doses (D_mean) were 26.1 ± 0.6, 25.7 ± 0.7, and 28 ± 4.39 (3D-CRT has higher D_mean compared to other techniques). Maximum PTV doses (D_max) were 28.23 ± 0.72, 28.73 ± 0.64, and 29.8 ± 1.03. IMRT had a better V₉₅ coverage and conformity index.  Organs At Risk (OARs): The volumes that received at least 25% of the prescription dose (V₂₅) of the heart were 3.41 ± 4.7, 1.8 ± 2.02 and 4.3 ± 6.98 in IMRT, VMAT and 3D-CRT, respectively. The volumetric (V₂₅) comparison of heart dose in left-sided breast cancer was significantly different between VMAT and 3D-CRT (p=0.04, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The volume that received at least 5% of the prescription dose (V₅ ) was less than 25% in the 3D-CRT plan (12.55). For the ipsilateral lung, the V₂₅ parameters were 19.53 ± 10.96, 23.93 ± 13.58 and 20.5 ± 12.32 in IMRT, VMAT and 3D-CRT, respectively. Conclusion From this study, we can conclude that IMRT and VMAT techniques are feasible and can achieve better dosimetric goals for target and OARs though minimizing the area achieving low dose remains to be a dosimetric concern for VMAT.