SU-E-T-451: Hybrid-VMAT: A Novel Technique Combining VMAT and 3D in Planning Whole Breast Radiotherapy with a Simultaneously-Integrated Boost (WBRT+SIB)




The RTOG 1005 trial offered a hypofractionated arm in delivering WBRT+SIB. Traditionally, treatments were planned at our institution using field-in-field (FiF) tangents with a concurrent 3D conformal boost. With the availability of VMAT, it is possible that a hybrid VMAT-3D planning technique could provide another avenue in treating WBRT+SIB.


A retrospective study of nine patients previously treated using RTOG 1005 guidelines was performed to compare FiF+3D plans with the hybrid technique. A combination of static tangents and partial VMAT arcs were used in base-dose optimization. The hybrid plans were optimized to deliver 4005cGy to the breast PTVeval and 4800cGy to the lumpectomy PTVeval over 15 fractions. Plans were optimized to meet the planning goals dictated by RTOG 1005.


Hybrid plans yielded similar coverage of breast and lumpectomy PTVs (average D95 of 4013cGy compared to 3990cGy for conventional), while reducing the volume of high dose within the breast; the average D30 and D50 for the hybrid technique were 4517cGy and 4288cGy, compared to 4704cGy and 4377cGy for conventional planning. Hybrid plans increased conformity as well, yielding CI95% values of 1.22 and 1.54 for breast and lumpectomy PTVeval volumes; in contrast, conventional plans averaged 1.49 and 2.27, respectively. The nearby organs at risk (OARs) received more low dose with the hybrid plans due to low dose spray from the partial arcs, but all hybrid plans did meet the acceptable constraints, at a minimum, from the protocol. Treatment planning time was also reduced, as plans were inversely optimized (VMAT) rather than forward optimized.


Hybrid-VMAT could be a solution in delivering WB+SIB, as plans yield very conformal treatment plans and maintain clinical standards in OAR sparing. For treating breast cancer patients with a simultaneously-integrated boost, Hybrid-VMAT offers superiority in dosimetric conformity and planning time as compared to FIF techniques.