Authors : Imane Lahlali; Mona Taouchikht; Mustapha Driouch; My Ali Youssoufi; Karima Nouni; Hanan El Kacemi; Tayeb Kebdani; Khalid Hassouni

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2nrmk9td

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yekxtmt7

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jul553

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is gaining popularity in external beam radiotherapy to optimize tumor coverage while sparing healthy tissue. The objective of this study is to compare the dosimetry between the VMAT technique and the conventional 3D tangential technique in the treatment of breast cancer.  Methods and Materials : The study is based on a dosimetric analysis of 35 breast cancer patients treated at the Radiotherapy Department of the National Institute of Oncology in Rabat, Morocco, between March 2024 and September 2024. Target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (heart, lungs, and spinal cord) were delineated on CT images according to ESTRO recommendations. 3D tangential treatment plans and VMAT plans were created for each patient, allowing for a comparative assessment of dosimetric parameters, including PTV coverage (V95), maximum dose (Dmax), as well as mean doses and irradiated volumes of critical organs.  Results: The results show significant differences in dose distribution between the two techniques:  Target volume coverage (PTV): The 95% coverage of the target volume (V95) is almost identical for both techniques.  Maximum dose in the target volume (PTV Dmax): The maximum dose delivered to the PTV is lower in VMAT (48.98 Gy) than in 3D (50.87 Gy), suggesting that VMAT can reduce hotspots within the target volume. This reduction in Dmax with VMAT could improve local tolerance and reduce side effects in the target volume. 3. 2% PTV: The dose received by 2% of the PTV is also more controlled in VMAT (46.50 Gy) compared to 50.97 Gy in 3D, indicating that VMAT manages to limit the high dose in critical regions of the PTV, which is favorable for dose homogeneity.  Mean dose to the heart and coverage of V17: The mean dose received by the heart is significantly higher in VMAT (3.94 Gy) compared to the 3D technique (2.32 Gy). Similarly, the cardiac volume receiving a dose greater than 17 Gy (V17) is slightly higher with VMAT (2.95%) compared to 3D (2.84%). These results indicate that 3D radiotherapy is more advantageous in terms of cardiac protection, a crucial parameter for patients with cardiovascular risks. 5. Maximum spinal cord dose: The maximum dose achieved in the spinal cord is higher with VMAT (8.58 Gy) than with 3D (4.03 Gy), suggesting that the 3D tangential technique may offer better spinal cord preservation.  Lung dose (V26 and V17): The results show that VMAT reduces pulmonary exposure: the lung volume receiving 26 Gy (V26) is reduced to 13.7% with VMAT, compared to 16.5% with 3D. However, the lung volume receiving 17 Gy (V17) is slightly higher with VMAT (24.6%) compared to 3D (21.2%). This reduction in V26 in VMAT could potentially reduce the risk of long-term pulmonary toxicity, although the increase in V17 requires careful assessment according to each patient's specific risks.  Conclusion : This analysis shows that the VMAT technique offers notable advantages, such as reduced maximum and high doses to the target volume, as well as reduced irradiated lung volume at a high dose. However, the VMAT technique increases the average dose to the heart and the maximum dose to the spinal cord compared to 3D radiotherapy. The choice of technique must therefore be guided by dosimetric priorities, particularly the protection of organs at risk, based on each patient's characteristics and risk factors.

References :

1. Ranger, A ∙ Dunlop, A ∙ Hansen, Un essai clinique randomisé de phase II comparant la délivrabilité et la toxicité aiguë de l'arcthérapie modulée à tangente large par rapport à l'arcthérapie volumétrique modulée au niveau du sein et de la chaîne mammaire interne Clin Oncol. 2022; 34 : 526-533
2. Donovan, E ∙ Bleakley, N ∙ Denholm, Essai randomisé comparant la radiothérapie 2D standard (RT) à la radiothérapie à intensité modulée (IMRT) chez des patientes ayant reçu une radiothérapie mammaire Radiother Oncol. 2007; 82 : 254-264
3. Alliance pour les essais cliniques en oncologie. Alliance A011202 : Essai randomisé de phase III comparant le curage ganglionnaire axillaire à la radiothérapie axillaire chez des patientes atteintes d'un cancer du sein (cT1-3 N1) présentant une maladie des ganglions sentinelles après chimiothérapie néoadjuvante.
4. Puckett, LL ∙ Kodali, D ∙ Solanki, AA, Mesures de qualité consensuelles et contraintes de dose pour le cancer du sein issues du programme de surveillance de la qualité de la radio-oncologie des anciens combattants et du groupe d'experts de l'American Society for Radiation Oncology Pract Radiat Oncol. 2023; 13 : 217-230
5. Straub, JM ∙ New, J ∙ Hamilton, CD Fibrose radio-induite : mécanismes et implications thérapeutiques J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015; 141 : 1985-1994
6. Mr. Darmon, University of Picardy, Jules Vernes Medical Training and Research Unit, Amiens Thesis No. 2015-111
7. Kwa SLS, Lebesque JV, Theuws JCM, Marks LB, Munley MT, Bentel G, et al. Radiation pneumonitis as a function of mean lung dose: an analysis of pooled data of 540 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1998 août;42(1):1–9.
8. Marks LB. Dosimetric predictors of radiation-induced lung injury. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2002 Oct 1;54(2):313–6.
9. Yorke ED, Jackson A, Rosenzweig KE, Braban L, Leibel SA, Ling CC. Correlation of dosimetric factors and radiation pneumonitis for non–small-cell lung cancer patients in a recently completed dose escalation study. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2005 Nov 1;63(3):672 82.
10. Blom Goldman U, Wennberg B, Svane G, Bylund H, Lind P. Reduction of radia tion pneumonitis by V20-constraints in breast cancer. Radiat Oncol 2010;5:99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-99.
11. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, et al. Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women after Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987–98.
12. Hall EJ, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56(1):83–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00073-7.
13. Lang K, Loritz B, Schwartz A, Hunzeker A, Lenards N, Culp L, et al. Dosi metric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy and a hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy and segmented field-in-field technique for postmastectomy chest wall and regional lymph node irradiation. Med Dosim 2020;45(2):121–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2019.08.001.
14. Canbolat HS, Demircan NV, Dinc ¸ SC ¸ , S¸ entürk E, Bora H, Hilal ÖG, et al. Dosimetric investigation of FIF, VMAT, IMRT, H-VMAT, and H-IMRT plan ning techniques in breast cancer radiotherapy. Turk J Oncol 2023;38:45–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.5505/tjo.2022.3740.
15. Stovall M, Smith SA, Langholz BM, Boice JD, Shore RE, Andersson M, et al. Dose to the Contralateral Breast from Radiation Therapy and Risk of Second Primary Breast Cancer in the WECARE Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 15;72(4):1021–30.
16. Stovall M, Smith SA, Langholz BM, Boice Jr JD, Shore RE, Andersson M, et al. Dose to the contralateral breast from radiotherapy and risk of second primary breast cancer in the WECARE study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(4):1021–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.040.
17. Hall EJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(1):1–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.01.027.
18. Selvaraj RN, Beriwal S, Pourarian RJ, Lalonde RJ, Chen A, Mehta K, et al. Clinical Implementation of Tangential Field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Using Sliding Window Technique and Dosimetric Comparison with 3D Conformal Therapy (3DCRT) in Breast Cancer. Med Dosim. 2007;32(4):299–304.
19. Goddu SM, Chaudhari S, Mamalui-Hunter M, Pechenaya OL, Pratt D, Mutic S, et al. Helical Tomotherapy Planning for Left-Sided Breast Cancer Patients With Positive Lymph Nodes: Comparison to Conventional Multiport Breast Technique. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2009 Mar 15;73(4):1243–51.
20. Lamberth F, Guilbert P, Gaillot-Petit N, Champagne C, Looten-Vieren L, Nguyen TD. Indications potentielles de la tomothérapie hélicoïdale dans les cancers du sein. Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2014 Jan;18(1):7–14.
21. Pignol J-P, Olivotto I, Rakovitch E, Gardner S, Sixel K, Beckham W, et al. A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Breast Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy to Reduce Acute Radiation Dermatitis. J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 1;26(13):2085–92.
22. Mukesh MB, Barnett GC, Wilkinson JS, Moody AM, Wilson C, Dorling L, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Early Breast Cancer: 5-Year Results Confirm Superior Overall Cosmesis. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 20;31(36):4488–95.