A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

What is the dosimetric impact of isotropic vs anisotropic safety margins for delineation of the clinical target volume in breast brachytherapy? | LitMetric

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to report dosimetric differences for breast brachytherapy plans optimized for clinical target volume (CTV) generated using conventional isotropic expansion of tumor bed volume (TBV) and Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) recommendations to expand the TBV anisotropically to achieve a total safety margin of 2 cm (resection margin size + added safety margin).

Methods: Institutional records of 100 patients who underwent accelerated partial breast irradiation using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy from May 2015 to March 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Two sets of CT-based plans were made, one with 1-cm isotropic margins around the tumor bed (CTV_ISO) and the other with anisotropic margins (CTV_GEC). Plans were evaluated and compared using the American Brachytherapy Society and GEC-ESTRO guidelines.

Results: The median TBV was 36.97 cc. The median margin widths were as follows: anterior 1.2, posterior 1.0, superior 1.0, inferior 0.9, medial 1.2, and lateral 1.2 cm. The mean tumor bed coverage index was 0.94; 0.93 [p.066], the CTV coverage index 0.86; 0.84 [p 0.001], the dose homogeneity index (DHI) 0.77; 0.75 [p < 0.001] and the conformity index 0.66; 0.64 [p < 0.001] in CTV_ISO and CTV_GEC plans, respectively. In smaller volume implants (TBV< 35 cc), the DHI was 0.76; 0.75 [p 0.008] and the conformity index was 0.66; 0.62 [p < 0.001], whereas in larger volumes >35 cc, the CTV coverage index was 0.86; 0.84 [p 0.003] and the DHI 0.78; 0.76 [p 0.001] in CTV_ISO and CTV_GEC plans, respectively.

Conclusions: In this cohort of patients who underwent accelerated partial breast irradiation, plans with anisotropic margins had lower conformity, the impact of which was predominantly seen in smaller implants. Rest of the dosimetric constraints were achieved in both the plans as per the American Brachytherapy Society and GEC-ESTRO guidelines.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2020.06.019DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tumor bed
12
clinical target
8
target volume
8
dosimetric impact
4
impact isotropic
4
isotropic anisotropic
4
anisotropic safety
4
safety margins
4
margins delineation
4
delineation clinical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!