Jephcott Catherine R, Tyldesley Scott, Swift Carrie-Lynne
Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Sep 1;60(1):103-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.057.
The three techniques commonly used to treat the axilla and supraclavicular nodes in adjuvant radiotherapy all have significant disadvantages, including underdosing the deeper nodes, excessively irradiating normal tissues, or producing undesirable hot spots. We assessed whether an anterior field with posterior boost field to the axilla with customized compensation of the anterior beam (APcomp-PAboost) would minimize these drawbacks.
The axillary and supraclavicular nodal volumes, planning target volume (PTV), irradiated volume, and brachial plexus were contoured for 10 patients. The plans for each technique-single anterior field (AP); anterior to posterior parallel pair (AP-PA); anterior field with posterior boost (AP-PAboost); and APcomp-PAboost-were then generated for each patient using CadPlan and compared.
The AP plan gave poor PTV coverage in 60% of cases. The AP-PA provided good PTV coverage and minimal hot spots, but resulted in consistent unnecessary RT to the medial posterior neck. The skin and tissue of the medial posterior neck and chest wall (i.e., the tissue overlying the posterior half of the ribs and posterior to the latissimus dorsi muscle, which forms the posterior wall of the axilla) was incidentally included in the radiation fields of the AP-PA and the exit of the AP beam. No nodal tissue is present in this region, and, therefore, this tissue was unnecessarily irradiated to higher doses with the AP-PA technique. The AP-PAboost provided adequate PTV coverage and a limited dose to the medial posterior neck, but produced hot spots in excess of 120% in 90% of cases. The APcomp-PAboost provided good PTV coverage, a limited dose to the medial posterior neck, and hot spots to <120% in all cases.
In most cases, the APcomp-PAboost technique offered the best compromise, but the AP-PA technique may be preferred if a less intense hot spot is sought.
辅助放疗中常用于治疗腋窝和锁骨上淋巴结的三种技术均存在显著缺点,包括对深部淋巴结剂量不足、过度照射正常组织或产生不良热点。我们评估了采用前野加腋后野并对前束进行定制补偿(APcomp-PAboost)是否能将这些缺点降至最低。
为10例患者勾勒出腋窝和锁骨上淋巴结体积、计划靶区(PTV)、照射体积和臂丛神经。然后使用CadPlan为每位患者生成每种技术的计划——单前野(AP);前后平行对野(AP-PA);前野加后野(AP-PAboost);以及APcomp-PAboost——并进行比较。
AP计划在60%的病例中PTV覆盖不佳。AP-PA提供了良好的PTV覆盖且热点最小,但导致后颈部内侧持续接受不必要的放疗。后颈部内侧和胸壁的皮肤及组织(即覆盖肋骨后半部且位于构成腋窝后壁的背阔肌后方的组织)意外包含在AP-PA的辐射野以及AP束的出射野中。该区域不存在淋巴结组织,因此,使用AP-PA技术时该组织接受了不必要的高剂量照射。AP-PAboost提供了足够的PTV覆盖且后颈部内侧剂量有限,但在90%的病例中产生了超过120%的热点。APcomp-PAboost提供了良好的PTV覆盖、后颈部内侧剂量有限且在所有病例中热点均<120%。
在大多数情况下,APcomp-PAboost技术提供了最佳折衷方案,但如果寻求不太强烈的热点,则AP-PA技术可能更受青睐。