Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Voluntary Breath-hold Technique for Reducing Heart Dose in Left Breast Radiotherapy
Published on: July 3, 2014
Application of tangent-arc technology for deep inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer
Yucheng Li1, Wenming Zhan1, Yongshi Jia1
1Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Objective:
To explore the advantages of dosimetry and the treatment efficiency of tangent-arc technology in deep inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy for breast cancer.
Methods:
Forty patients with left-sided breast cancer who were treated in our hospital from May 2020 to June 2021 were randomly selected and divided into two groups. The first group's plan was a continuous semi-arc that started at 145° ( ± 5°) and stopped at 325° ( ± 5°). The other group's plan, defined as the tangent-arc plan, had two arcs: the first arc started at 145° ( ± 5°) and stopped at 85° ( ± 5°), and the second arc started at 25° ( ± 5°) and stopped at 325° ( ± 5°). We compared the target dose, dose in organs at risk (OARs), and treatment time between the two groups.
Results:
The target dose was similar between the continuous semiarc and tangent-arc groups. The V5 of the right lung was significantly different between the two groups (Dif 5.52, 95% confidence interval 1.92-9.13, t=3.10, P=0.004), with the patients in the continuous semi-arc and tangent-arc groups having lung V5 values of (9.16 ± 1.62)%, and (3.64 ± 0.73)%, respectively. The maximum dose to the spinal cord was (1835.88 ± 222.17) cGy in the continuous semi-arc group and (599.42 ± 153.91) cGy in the tangent-arc group, yielding a significant difference between the two groups (Dif 1236.46, 95% confidence interval 689.32-1783.6, t=4.57, P<0.001). The treatment times was (311.70 ± 60.45) s for patients in the continuous semi-arc group and (254.66 ± 40.73) s for patients in the tangent-arc group, and there was a significant difference in the mean number of treatment times between the two groups (Dif 57.04, 95% confidence interval 24.05-90.03, t=3.5, P=0.001).
Conclusion:
Both the continuous semi-arc and tangent-arc plans met the clinical prescription dose requirements. The OARs received less radiation with the tangent-arc plan than the continuous semi-arc plan, especially for the lung (measured as V5) and the spinal cord (measured as the maximum dose). Tangent-arc plan took significantly less time than the continuous semi-arc, which can greatly improve treatment efficiency. Therefore, tangent-arc plans are superior continuous semi-arc plans for all cases.
