Hybrid Treatment Planning for Chest Wall Irradiation Utilizing Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): A Systematic Review.

Novel hybrid approaches for chest wall irradiation show promising outcomes regarding target coverage and sparing organs at risk (OARs). In this systematic review, we compared hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) or hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) techniques with non-hybrid techniques, such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), field-in-field (FIF), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for breast cancer patients with mastectomy. Our focus was the plan quality and dose distribution to the OARs. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, we performed a systematic review and quality appraisal of primary studies evaluating hybrid therapy to the chest wall and the OARs. An extensive online search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted using appropriate keywords. The dose to the OARs (lung, heart, and contralateral breast), planning target volume (PTV), homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI) were extracted. The data were then tabulated and compared for the outcomes between modalities among the studies. Nine studies that met the search criteria were selected to evaluate the PTV coverage and dosimetric results of hybrid and non-hybrid techniques. In terms of 95% PTV coverage, among nine reviewed studies, the largest difference between the two techniques was between VMAT (47.6 Gy) and H-VMAT (48.4 Gy); for the conformity index, the largest difference was noted between 3DCRT (0.58) and H-VMAT (0.79). In both cases, differences were statistically significant ( < 0.005). Two studies showed dose homogeneity improvement within the treatment target in H-VMAT (0.15 and 0.07) compared with 3DCRT (0.41 and 0.12), with a value of <0.001. Two studies did not report on the homogeneity index, and three others observed no statistical difference. Regarding OARs, in the comparison of H-VMAT and VMAT, the largest significant change was in the volume receiving 5 Gy (V) of the ipsilateral lung and the V of the contralateral lung. For the ipsilateral lung, V was 90.7% with VMAT versus 51.45% with H-VMAT. For the contralateral lung, V was 54.9% with VMAT versus 50.5% with H-VMAT. In six studies, the mean dose of the contralateral breast was lower in hybrid techniques than in single modalities: VMAT (4.2%, 6.0%, 1.9%, 7.1%, 4.57%) versus H-VMAT (1.4%, 3.4%, 1.8%, 3.5%, 2.34%) and IMRT (9.1%) versus H-IMRT (4.69%). Although most studies did not report on monitor units and treatment time, those that included them showed that hybrids had lower monitor units and shorter treatment times. Hybrid techniques in radiotherapy, such as combining two modalities, can indeed facilitate lower doses to OARs for patients with a high risk of toxicities. Prospective clinical studies are needed to determine the outcomes of breast cancer treated with hybrid techniques.