Plan quality assessment of modern radiotherapy delivery techniques in left-sided breast cancer: an analysis stratified by target delineation guidelines

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective:</jats:title><jats:p> This study compares planning techniques stratified by consensus delineation guidelines in patients undergoing whole-breast radiotherapy based on an objective plan quality assessment scale. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> 10 patients with left-sided breast cancer were randomly selected, and target delineation for intact breast was performed using Tangent (RTOG 0413), ESTRO, and RTOG guidelines. Consensus Plan Quality Metric (PQM) scoring was defined and communicated to the physicist before commencing treatment planning. Field-in-field IMRT (FiF), inverse IMRT (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created for each delineation. Statistical analyses utilised a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance, after applying a Bonferroni correction. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> Total PQM score of plans for Tangent and ESTRO were comparable for FiF and IMRT techniques (FiF vs IMRT for Tangent, p = 0.637; FiF vs IMRT for ESTRO, p = 0.304), and were also significantly higher compared to VMAT. Total PQM score of plans for RTOG revealed that IMRT planning achieved a significantly higher score compared to both FiF and VMAT (IMRT vs FiF, p &lt; 0.001; IMRT vs VMAT, p &lt; 0.001). </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title><jats:p> Total PQM scores were equivalent for FiF and IMRT for both Tangent and ESTRO delineations, whereas IMRT was best suited for RTOG delineation. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Advances in knowledge:</jats:title><jats:p> FiF and IMRT planning techniques are best suited for ESTRO or Tangent delineations. IMRT also yields better results with RTOG delineation. </jats:p></jats:sec>