AUTHOR=Li Yucheng , Zhan Wenming , Jia Yongshi , Xiong Hanchu , Lin Baihua , Li Qiang , Liu Huaxin , Qiu Lingyun , Zhang Yinghao , Ding Jieni , Fu Chao , Chen Weijun 

TITLE=Application of tangent-arc technology for deep inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology

VOLUME=13

YEAR=2023

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1145332

DOI=10.3389/fonc.2023.1145332

ISSN=2234-943X

ABSTRACT=<sec><title>Objective</title><p>To explore the advantages of dosimetry and the treatment efficiency of tangent-arc technology in deep inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy for breast cancer.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Forty patients with left-sided breast cancer who were treated in our hospital from May 2020 to June 2021 were randomly selected and divided into two groups. The first group’s plan was a continuous semi-arc that started at 145° ( ± 5°) and stopped at 325° ( ± 5°). The other group’s plan, defined as the tangent-arc plan, had two arcs: the first arc started at 145° ( ± 5°) and stopped at 85° ( ± 5°), and the second arc started at 25° ( ± 5°) and stopped at 325° ( ± 5°). We compared the target dose, dose in organs at risk (OARs), and treatment time between the two groups.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>The target dose was similar between the continuous semiarc and tangent-arc groups. The V<sub>5</sub> of the right lung was significantly different between the two groups (Dif 5.52, 95% confidence interval 1.92-9.13, <italic>t</italic>=3.10, <italic>P</italic>=0.004), with the patients in the continuous semi-arc and tangent-arc groups having lung V<sub>5</sub> values of (9.16 ± 1.62)%, and (3.64 ± 0.73)%, respectively. The maximum dose to the spinal cord was (1835.88 ± 222.17) cGy in the continuous semi-arc group and (599.42 ± 153.91) cGy in the tangent-arc group, yielding a significant difference between the two groups (Dif 1236.46, 95% confidence interval 689.32-1783.6, <italic>t</italic>=4.57, <italic>P</italic>&lt;0.001). The treatment times was (311.70 ± 60.45) s for patients in the continuous semi-arc group and (254.66 ± 40.73) s for patients in the tangent-arc group, and there was a significant difference in the mean number of treatment times between the two groups (Dif 57.04, 95% confidence interval 24.05-90.03, <italic>t</italic>=3.5, <italic>P</italic>=0.001).</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Both the continuous semi-arc and tangent-arc plans met the clinical prescription dose requirements. The OARs received less radiation with the tangent-arc plan than the continuous semi-arc plan, especially for the lung (measured as V<sub>5</sub>) and the spinal cord (measured as the maximum dose). Tangent-arc plan took significantly less time than the continuous semi-arc, which can greatly improve treatment efficiency. Therefore, tangent-arc plans are superior continuous semi-arc plans for all cases.</p></sec>