We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on the breast has several dosimetric advantages but its impact on skin dose should be evaluated and compared to well-established treatment techniques using tangential fields. The aim of this work is to contrast the skin dose for VMAT and field-in-field (FIF) and to estimate the magnitude of the skin dose involved.
Method:
The skin dose was measured, without build-up, using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) in breast radiotherapy by an in-house anthropomorphic phantom. Two different treatment techniques were used: FIF and VMAT, based on the planning strategy proposed by Nicolini et al. The dose levels were 4300 cGy, 4600 cGy and 5600 cGy in 20 fractions. In vivo dosimetry with TLD for VMAT was performed for different breast sizes in the same locations as phantom measurements.
Results:
The ipsilateral phantom breast skin dose using both treatment techniques was equivalent. TLD measured doses by the VMAT technique were up to 5% higher than OSLD, although they agree if we consider the geometry uncertainty of the TLD. In accordance with in vivo dosimetry, the mean dose of the ipsilateral breast skin was 62 ± 6% (51%, 75%) relative to the prescribed dose, regardless of the breast size for the volumes considered with this small population (n = 9) as shown by Mann–Whitney U-test (Z = 1·9, 95% confidence). The uncertainty expected in this region due to geometry (volume) changes is up to 9% higher for volumes from 225·9 cc to 968·8 cc. According to the treatment techniques and in vivo dosimetry, the contralateral breast skin dose was 1·0% in FIF and 2·5% in VMAT concerning the prescribed dose.
Conclusion:
There is no difference in skin dosimetry between VMAT and FIF techniques on the ipsilateral breast. It provides useful support for the use of VMAT as a planning technique for breast irradiation. The work describes the importance of quantifying potential differences in skin dosimetry.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.