SU‐E‐T‐315

Preliminary Results of the Dosimetric Impact of Set‐Up Accuracy for An Electron Breast Boost Technique

S. Davidson, B. Mason, K. Kisling, R. Barrett, A. Bonetati, M. Ballo, S. Kirsner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the dosimetric impact of set‐up accuracy of an electron breast boost technique using a lateral decubitus position with and without a breast compression device. Methods: Reproducibility of the breast boost set‐up was verified for 19 patients and 99 fractions using Cone Beam CT (CBCT). 3D‐3D matching was performed between the CBCT and the initial planning CT for each boost fraction by matching the tumor bed and clips. Shifts in all three dimensions were recorded for each fraction. The dosimetric impact of the daily positioning error was achieved by rerunning the initial treatment plans incorporating the shifts recorded for each fraction. Comparison of the tumor bed and scar coverage was analyzed for both plans. Results: The range of set‐up errors based on CBCT was: 1.5 cm anterior to 8 mm posterior, 1.3 cm superior to 2.3 cm inferior, and −2.4 cm to 2.1 cm laterally. Three patients had set‐up errors that were greater than or equal to 2 cm which is the normal margin placed on the tumor bed and scar. Two of these three patients had unacceptable coverage as defined by the V90 when compared to the original plan. The remaining 17 patients had no discernible difference in coverage (V90). Whether patients had breast compression seemed to have little impact on reproducibility of the set‐up. Conclusion: 14 patients with a breast compression device and 5 patients without a breast compression device were studied using CBCT to quantify set‐up error from 99 fractions. A 2 cm margin around the tumor bed plus scar volume seems to be adequate to account for set‐up error. No appreciable difference was seen in set‐up error between patients with breast compression or without. The two patients with unacceptable coverage were large breasted with deep seated tumors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Breast
Electrons
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Cicatrix
Neoplasms
Equipment and Supplies
Surgical Instruments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐315 : Preliminary Results of the Dosimetric Impact of Set‐Up Accuracy for An Electron Breast Boost Technique. / Davidson, S.; Mason, B.; Kisling, K.; Barrett, R.; Bonetati, A.; Ballo, M.; Kirsner, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Davidson, S. ; Mason, B. ; Kisling, K. ; Barrett, R. ; Bonetati, A. ; Ballo, M. ; Kirsner, S. / SU‐E‐T‐315 : Preliminary Results of the Dosimetric Impact of Set‐Up Accuracy for An Electron Breast Boost Technique. In: Medical Physics. 2013 ; Vol. 40, No. 6.
@article{fe63bb71550d4c83bcbabf769d06ef32,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐315: Preliminary Results of the Dosimetric Impact of Set‐Up Accuracy for An Electron Breast Boost Technique",
abstract = "Purpose: To analyze the dosimetric impact of set‐up accuracy of an electron breast boost technique using a lateral decubitus position with and without a breast compression device. Methods: Reproducibility of the breast boost set‐up was verified for 19 patients and 99 fractions using Cone Beam CT (CBCT). 3D‐3D matching was performed between the CBCT and the initial planning CT for each boost fraction by matching the tumor bed and clips. Shifts in all three dimensions were recorded for each fraction. The dosimetric impact of the daily positioning error was achieved by rerunning the initial treatment plans incorporating the shifts recorded for each fraction. Comparison of the tumor bed and scar coverage was analyzed for both plans. Results: The range of set‐up errors based on CBCT was: 1.5 cm anterior to 8 mm posterior, 1.3 cm superior to 2.3 cm inferior, and −2.4 cm to 2.1 cm laterally. Three patients had set‐up errors that were greater than or equal to 2 cm which is the normal margin placed on the tumor bed and scar. Two of these three patients had unacceptable coverage as defined by the V90 when compared to the original plan. The remaining 17 patients had no discernible difference in coverage (V90). Whether patients had breast compression seemed to have little impact on reproducibility of the set‐up. Conclusion: 14 patients with a breast compression device and 5 patients without a breast compression device were studied using CBCT to quantify set‐up error from 99 fractions. A 2 cm margin around the tumor bed plus scar volume seems to be adequate to account for set‐up error. No appreciable difference was seen in set‐up error between patients with breast compression or without. The two patients with unacceptable coverage were large breasted with deep seated tumors.",
author = "S. Davidson and B. Mason and K. Kisling and R. Barrett and A. Bonetati and M. Ballo and S. Kirsner",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814749",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐315

T2 - Preliminary Results of the Dosimetric Impact of Set‐Up Accuracy for An Electron Breast Boost Technique

AU - Davidson, S.

AU - Mason, B.

AU - Kisling, K.

AU - Barrett, R.

AU - Bonetati, A.

AU - Ballo, M.

AU - Kirsner, S.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: To analyze the dosimetric impact of set‐up accuracy of an electron breast boost technique using a lateral decubitus position with and without a breast compression device. Methods: Reproducibility of the breast boost set‐up was verified for 19 patients and 99 fractions using Cone Beam CT (CBCT). 3D‐3D matching was performed between the CBCT and the initial planning CT for each boost fraction by matching the tumor bed and clips. Shifts in all three dimensions were recorded for each fraction. The dosimetric impact of the daily positioning error was achieved by rerunning the initial treatment plans incorporating the shifts recorded for each fraction. Comparison of the tumor bed and scar coverage was analyzed for both plans. Results: The range of set‐up errors based on CBCT was: 1.5 cm anterior to 8 mm posterior, 1.3 cm superior to 2.3 cm inferior, and −2.4 cm to 2.1 cm laterally. Three patients had set‐up errors that were greater than or equal to 2 cm which is the normal margin placed on the tumor bed and scar. Two of these three patients had unacceptable coverage as defined by the V90 when compared to the original plan. The remaining 17 patients had no discernible difference in coverage (V90). Whether patients had breast compression seemed to have little impact on reproducibility of the set‐up. Conclusion: 14 patients with a breast compression device and 5 patients without a breast compression device were studied using CBCT to quantify set‐up error from 99 fractions. A 2 cm margin around the tumor bed plus scar volume seems to be adequate to account for set‐up error. No appreciable difference was seen in set‐up error between patients with breast compression or without. The two patients with unacceptable coverage were large breasted with deep seated tumors.

AB - Purpose: To analyze the dosimetric impact of set‐up accuracy of an electron breast boost technique using a lateral decubitus position with and without a breast compression device. Methods: Reproducibility of the breast boost set‐up was verified for 19 patients and 99 fractions using Cone Beam CT (CBCT). 3D‐3D matching was performed between the CBCT and the initial planning CT for each boost fraction by matching the tumor bed and clips. Shifts in all three dimensions were recorded for each fraction. The dosimetric impact of the daily positioning error was achieved by rerunning the initial treatment plans incorporating the shifts recorded for each fraction. Comparison of the tumor bed and scar coverage was analyzed for both plans. Results: The range of set‐up errors based on CBCT was: 1.5 cm anterior to 8 mm posterior, 1.3 cm superior to 2.3 cm inferior, and −2.4 cm to 2.1 cm laterally. Three patients had set‐up errors that were greater than or equal to 2 cm which is the normal margin placed on the tumor bed and scar. Two of these three patients had unacceptable coverage as defined by the V90 when compared to the original plan. The remaining 17 patients had no discernible difference in coverage (V90). Whether patients had breast compression seemed to have little impact on reproducibility of the set‐up. Conclusion: 14 patients with a breast compression device and 5 patients without a breast compression device were studied using CBCT to quantify set‐up error from 99 fractions. A 2 cm margin around the tumor bed plus scar volume seems to be adequate to account for set‐up error. No appreciable difference was seen in set‐up error between patients with breast compression or without. The two patients with unacceptable coverage were large breasted with deep seated tumors.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024790432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024790432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814749

DO - 10.1118/1.4814749

M3 - Article

VL - 40

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -