Open AccessEffect of auto flash margin on superficial dose in breast conserving radiotherapy for breast cancer
Author(s) -
Wang Lu,
Qiu Gang,
Yu Jianhe,
Zhang Qunhui,
Man Li,
Chen Li,
Zhang Xiaoxiao,
Ren Qun,
Xu Hongxia,
Hua Xiaolong
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13287
Subject(s) - collimator , nuclear medicine , breast cancer , radiation therapy , dosimetry , medicine , significant difference , materials science , radiation treatment planning , biomedical engineering , optics , radiology , physics , cancer
Purpose To investigate the dose‐effect of Auto Flash Margin (AFM) on breast cancer's superficial tissues based on the Treatment Planning System (TPS) in the breast‐conserving radiotherapy plan. Methods A total of 16 breast‐conserving patients with early stage breast cancer were selected, using the X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm. Then, every included case plan was designed using a 2 cm‐AFM (the value of AFM is 2 cm) and N‐AFM (without AFM). Under the condition of ensuring the same configuration of #MU and collimator, the absorbed dose after a simulated inspiratory motion was calculated again using the new plan center, which moved backward to the linac source. The dose difference between the measurement points between AFM and N‐AFM groups was compared. Results In the dose results, PTV V50Gy of the AFM group was superior to that of the N‐AFM group, PTV D2% , PTV Dmean , Lung_Ipsi V20Gy , Lung_Ipsi Dmean , and Body Dmax . Also, the dose results of the N‐AFM group were significantly higher than those of the AFM group. However, there was no significant difference between Lung_Contra V5Gy , Heart Dmean , and Breast_Contra V10Gy in the two groups. In the collimator alignments at the same angle between groups, the AFM group formed an apparent air region outside the collimator compared with the N‐AFM group. In the XVMC algorithm feature parameter, the AFM group had less #MU, higher QE, and slightly longer optimization time. The #segments of both groups were close to the 240 control points preset by the plan. The validation results of EBT3 film in both groups were more significant than 95%, meeting the clinical plan's application requirements. The difference in film results between groups was mainly reflected in the dose distribution at the near‐source. 4DCT was used to summarize the maximum and minimum inspiratory motion distances of 7.31 ± 0.45 and 3.42 ± 0.91 mm respectively. Conclusions These results suggest that the AFM function application could significantly reduce the possibility of insufficient tumor target caused by inspiratory motion and ensure sufficient tumor target exposure.