MATERIALS/METHODS: A total of 10 patients with synchronous bilateral breast cancer who were treated with VMAT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical target volume (CTV) included chest wall and regional nodes (supraclavicular fossa and internal mammary chain) and prescription dose was 40.05 Gy in 15 daily fractions. HT and IMPT plans were generated for each patient. Dose-volume statistics, including planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to OAR: lungs, heart, thyroid, spinal cord, brachial plexus and esophagus, were compared between modalities using a paired T-test.
RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 61 years (43-84). Majority of the patients (80%) were ER+ PR+ and HER2-. 40% of patients underwent breast reconstruction following surgery. All 3 techniques provided adequate target volume distribution and OAR sparing. Compared to VMAT and HT plans, IMPT had better heart and lung sparing effects, resulting in lower mean and V25 Gy heart dose; mean, V20 Gy and V5 Gy lung dose (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in VMAT and HT plans for mean heart and lung dose. VMAT plans showed significantly lower V25 Gy heart dose on average (p = 0.04). V5 Gy lung dose was slightly lower in HT compared to VMAT plans, approaching statistical significance (p = 0.08). PTV coverage was adequate for all 3 techniques. All techniques fulfilled cord, esophagus, thyroid and brachial plexus constraints.
CONCLUSION: IMPT plans showed significantly better OAR sparing compared to photon techniques. All 3 techniques met OAR constraints, and resulted in adequate target volume coverage. As IMPT is significantly more costly than VMAT or HT techniques, appropriate patient selection is important to deliver treatment in the most resource-effective manner for patients who would derive the most benefit, for example those with young age or existing heart or lung comorbidities.