4.5 Article

Prone versus supine position for adjuvant breast radiotherapy: a prospective study in patients with pendulous breasts

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-232

关键词

Breast cancer; Prone setup; Dosimetric analysis

资金

  1. Piedmont Region in the frame of Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata
  2. Lega Italiana per la lotta contro i tumori-Sezione Provinciale di Novara ONLUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To analyze dosimetric parameters of patients receiving adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) in the prone versus supine position. Methods and materials: Forty-one out of 55 patients with pendulous breasts and candidates for adjuvant RT were enrolled in the study after informed consent. They underwent computed tomography (CT)-simulation in both prone and supine position. Target and non target volumes were outlined on CT images. Prescribed dose was 50 Gy delivered by two tangential photon fields followed by 10 Gy electron boost. Target coverage and dose homogeneity to clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) were assessed by V95, V105 and V107 and dose to lung, heart and left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) by V5, V10, V20, and mean and maximum dose. Data were analyzed by Student's t-test. Results: CTV and PTV coverage was significantly better in supine than in prone position. Lung V5, V10, and V20 were significantly lower in prone than in supine position. Heart V5, V10, V20, and LAD mean and maximum dose, in the 17 patients with left breast tumor, were lower in prone than in supine position, but without statistical significance. Based on treatment planning data and on treatment feasibility, 29/41 patients (70.7%) were treated in prone position. Acute and late toxicities of patients treated in prone and in supine position were not statistically different. Conclusion: Prone position is a favorable alternative for irradiation of mammary gland in patients with pendulous breasts and in our series was adopted in 71% of the cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据