Scholarlink

<p>Radiotherapy for right-sided modified radical mastectomy (MRM) patients carries a risk of secondary malignancies due to radiation exposure to nearby organs-at-risk (OARs). Techniques such as 3D-CRT, IMRT (sliding window), and VMAT differ in their dose distribution to these OARs. This retrospective study analyzed dose–volume histograms from 25 female patients with right-sided MRM to compare the three techniques in terms of dosimetric parameters, radiobiological outcomes, and secondary cancer risks. Mean doses to key OARs—the heart, contralateral lung, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral breast—were evaluated, and NTCP calculations were used to quantify radiation-induced secondary malignancy risks. 3D-CRT delivered lower mean doses to contralateral OARs, reducing secondary cancer risks compared to IMRT and VMAT, but was associated with higher NTCP in the ipsilateral lung. VMAT achieved superior target conformity but increased low-dose exposure to contralateral OARs, raising secondary cancer risks. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment planning for right-sided MRM patients. Overall, 3D-CRT appears favorable for minimizing secondary cancer risks in contralateral organs, despite higher ipsilateral lung NTCP. This study provides a framework for integrating dosimetric, radiobiological, and secondary cancer risk assessments in radiotherapy planning, supporting future strategies to optimize both efficacy and safety.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A novel paradigm in radiotherapy planning techniques comparison for dosimetric and secondary cancer risk assessment in right-sided modified radical mastectomy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月24日

查看全文
  • Amal Jose,
  • Anju George,
  • Abhishek Pratap Singh,
  • Desh Deepak Ladia

摘要

Radiotherapy for right-sided modified radical mastectomy (MRM) patients carries a risk of secondary malignancies due to radiation exposure to nearby organs-at-risk (OARs). Techniques such as 3D-CRT, IMRT (sliding window), and VMAT differ in their dose distribution to these OARs. This retrospective study analyzed dose–volume histograms from 25 female patients with right-sided MRM to compare the three techniques in terms of dosimetric parameters, radiobiological outcomes, and secondary cancer risks. Mean doses to key OARs—the heart, contralateral lung, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral breast—were evaluated, and NTCP calculations were used to quantify radiation-induced secondary malignancy risks. 3D-CRT delivered lower mean doses to contralateral OARs, reducing secondary cancer risks compared to IMRT and VMAT, but was associated with higher NTCP in the ipsilateral lung. VMAT achieved superior target conformity but increased low-dose exposure to contralateral OARs, raising secondary cancer risks. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment planning for right-sided MRM patients. Overall, 3D-CRT appears favorable for minimizing secondary cancer risks in contralateral organs, despite higher ipsilateral lung NTCP. This study provides a framework for integrating dosimetric, radiobiological, and secondary cancer risk assessments in radiotherapy planning, supporting future strategies to optimize both efficacy and safety.