Search

Purpose: To examine interobserver variability between the radiation oncologist (RTO) and the radiation therapist (RTT) in delineating the tumor bed (TB) in early breast cancer (BC).Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who received a radiotherapy boost to the TB. In a first group, the clinical target volume (CTV) for the boost was the surgical bed, defined by using surgical clips. In a second group, the CTV was defined by identifying a seroma cavity or a metallic find on the scar. These contours were compared in terms of volume, number of slices, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).Results: Forty patients were assessed: 20 had surgical clips (group 1) while the other 20 had none (group 2). There was no difference in the number of slices contoured by the 2 operators for group 1, but a statistically significant difference emerged in the volumes: the RTT identified a TB that was a mean 45% smaller than the one identified by the RTO. Random differences were found between the 2 operators for group 2. The TBs delineated for this group were significantly larger (P<0.05) than those identified by the RTT for group 1. The mean Dice value between the RTO’s and the RTT’s TBs was 0.69±0.07 (range 0.53–0.81) for group 1 and 0.37±0.18 (range 0–0.58) for group 2 (P<0.05).Conclusions: This study showed that the use of clips coincided with less interoperator variability. With appropriate training, the RTT may play an important part in the multidisciplinary radiotherapy team.

Purpose To evaluate the dosimetric coverage of axillary levels I, II, and III obtained with standard whole breast irradiation in 1 to 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) patients not submitted to axillary lymph nodes dissection (ALND), and to compare the lymph nodes areas coverage obtained with 3D conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).Methods Patients with 1 to 2 positive SLNs undergoing breast-conserving therapy, without ALND, were included in the analysis. For each patient, 3 treatment plans were performed: a 3D conventional tangential plan, a static IMRT plan, and a volumetric IMRT, designed to encompass the entire breast parenchyma. The volumes of axillary levels I, II, and III receiving 90% and 95% (V90, V95) of the whole breast prescribed dose were evaluated. Dose-volume histograms were compared by means of the Friedman test.Results Ten patients were enrolled. All defined breast volumes received >95% of the prescribed dose with the 3 techniques. Median V95 for axillary level I was 26.4% (range 4.7%-61.3%) for 3D plans, 8.6% (range 0.64%-19.1%) for static IMRT plans, and 2.6% (range 0.4%-4.7%) for volumetric IMRT plans (p<0.001). Median V95 for axillary level II was 5.4% (range 0%-14.6%), 1.9% (range 0%-15%), and 2.6% (range 0.4%-4.7%) for 3D, static IMRT, and volumetric IMRT, respectively (p<0.001).Conclusions Results of our analysis showed that standard 3D tangential whole breast irradiation failed to deliver a therapeutic dose to axillary levels I and II. The coverage was even lower using static and volumetric IMRT techniques.