Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Chest-wall Surface Dose During Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy, with and without Nonmagnetic Bolus: A Phantom Study
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Journal of Magnetics
  • Volume 21, Issue 2,  2016, pp.293-297
  • Publisher : The Korean Magnetics Society
  • DOI : 10.4283/JMAG.2016.21.2.293
 Title & Authors
Chest-wall Surface Dose During Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy, with and without Nonmagnetic Bolus: A Phantom Study
Choi, Cheon Woong; Hong, Joo Wan; Park, Cheol Soo; Ahn, Jae Ouk;
  PDF(new window)
For mastectomy patients, sufficient doses of radiation should be delivered to the surface of the chest wall to prevent recurrence. A bolus is used to increase the surface dose on the chest wall, whereby the surface dose is confirmed with the use of a virtual bolus during the computerized treatment-planning process. The purpose of this study is an examination of the difference between the dose of the computerized treatment plan and the dose that is measured on the bolus. Part of the left breast of an Anderson Rando phantom was removed, followed by the attainment of computed tomography (CT) images that were used as the basis for computerized treatment plans that were established with no bolus, a 3 mm-thick bolus, a 5 mm-thick bolus, and a 10 mm-thick bolus. For the computerized treatment plan, a prescribed dose regimen was dispensed daily and planning target volume (PTV) coverage was applied according to the RTOG 1304 guidelines. Using each of the established computerized treatment plans, chest-wall doses of 5 points were measured; this chest-wall dose was used as the standard for the analysis of this study, while the level of significance was set at P < 0.05. The measurement of the chest-wall dose with no bolus is 1.6 % to 10.3 % higher, and the differences of the minimum average and the maximum average of the five measurement points are -13.8 and -1.9, respectively (P < 0.05); however, when the bolus was used, the dosage was measured as 3.7 % to 9.2 % lower, and the differences of the minimum average and the maximum average are 7.4 and 9.0, -1.2 and 17.4, and 8.1 and 19.8 for 3 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm, respectively (P < 0.05). As the thickness of the bolus is increased, the differences of the average surface dose are further increased. There are a variety of factors that affect the surface dose on the chest wall during post-mastectomy radiation therapy, for which verification is required; in particular, a consideration of the appropriate thickness and the number of uses when a bolus is used, and which has the greatest effect on the surface dose on the chest wall, is considered necessary.
nonmagnetic bolus;post-mastectomy;bolus;chest wall;surface dose;
 Cited by
A. Recht, S. B. Edge, L. J. Solin, D. S. Robinson, A. Estabrook, and R. E. Fine, J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 1539 (2001).

M. Overgaard, H. M. Nielsen, and J. Overgaard, Radiother Oncol. 82, 247 (2007). crossref(new window)

J. R. Harris, P. Halpin-Murphy, M. McNeese, N. P. Mendenhall, M. Morrow, and N. J. Robert, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 44, 989 (1999). crossref(new window)

J. Kurtz, Eur. J. Cancer. 38, 1961 (2002). crossref(new window)

P. T. Truong, I. A. Olivotto, T. J. Whelan, and M. Levine, CMAJ. 170, 1263 (2004). crossref(new window)

M. Fischbach, R. Halg, M. Hartmann, J. Besserer, G. Gruber, and U. Schneider, Radiat Oncol. 8, 270 (2013). crossref(new window)

R. J. Kudchadker, J. A. Antolak, W. H. Morrison, P. F. Wong, and K. R. Hogstrom, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys./ Amer. Coll. Medi. Phys. 4, 321 (2003). crossref(new window)

S. H. Hsu, P. L. Roberson, Y. Chen, R. B. Marsh, L. J. Pierce, and J. M. Moran, Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 2593 (2008). crossref(new window)

B. Demir, M. Okutan, A. Cakir, E. Goksel, and H. Bilge, Med. Dosime. 34, 311 (2010).

M. T. Tieu, P. Graham, L. Browne, and Y. S. Chin, Inter. J. Radi. Oncol. 81, 165 (2011).

M. Nakano, R. F. Hill, M. Whitaker, J. H. Kim, and Z. Kuncic, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 13, 3727 (2012).

K. Quach, J. Morales, M. Butson, A. B. Rosenfeld, and P. E. Metcalfe, Med. Phys. 27, 1676 (2000). crossref(new window)

I. Soong, T. Yau, C. Ho, B. Lim, S. Leung, and R. Yeung, Clin. Oncol. 16, 283 (2004). crossref(new window)

T. Vu, J. P. Pignol, E. Rakovitch, J. Spayne, and L. Paszat, Clin. Oncol. 19, 115 (2007). crossref(new window)

S. M. Bentzen, Natu. Rev. Canc. 6, 702 (2006). crossref(new window)

A. C. Shiau, M. C. Chiu, T. H. Chen, J. F. Chiou, P. W. Shueng, and S. W. Chen, Med. Dosi. 37, 417 (2013).

J. Leif, H. Nguyen, A. Hollan, D. Followill, J. Galvin, and D. Kiniry, Inter. J. Radi. Onco. Biol. Phys. 90, 940 (2014).

P. Scalchi, P. Francescon, and P. Rajaguru, Med. Phys. 32, 1571 (2005). crossref(new window)

I. S. Kwan, A. B. Rosenfeld, Z. Y. Qi, D. Wilkinson, M. L. Lerch, and D. L. Cutajar, Radi. Measu. 43, 929 (2008). crossref(new window)

R. Ramani, S. Russell, and P. O'Brien, Inter. J. Radi. Onco. Biol. Phys. 37, 959 (1997). crossref(new window)

Y. Akino, I. J. Das, G. K. Bartlett, H. Zhang, E. Thompson, and J. E. Zook, Med. Phys. 40, 714 (2013).

S. Ito, B. C. Parker, R. Levine, M. E. Sanders, J. Fontenot, and J. Gibbons, Inter. J. Radi. Onco. Biol. Phys. 81, 584 (2011). crossref(new window)

H. F. Xiang, J. S. Song, D. W. Chin, R. A. Cormack, R. B. Tishler, and G. M. Makrigiorgos, Med. Phys. 34, 1266 (20074). crossref(new window)

J. B. Chung, J. S. Kim, I. A. Kim, and J. W. Lee, J. The Kor. Phys. Soc. 61, 1143 (2012). crossref(new window)

V. Panettieri, P. Barsoum, M. Westermark, L. Brualla, and I. Lax, Rad. Ther. Onco. 93, 94 (2009). crossref(new window)

J. C. Chow, R. Jiang, and M. K. Leung, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 12, 78 (2010).

E. Healy, S. Anderson, J. Cui, L. Beckett, and A. M. Chen, J. Perks, Prac. Radi. Onco. 3, 45 (2013). crossref(new window)