Evaluation of organ-specific peripheral doses after 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer based on Monte Carlo and convolution/superposition algorithms: implications for secondary cancer risk assessment.

To make a comprehensive evaluation of organ-specific out-of-field doses using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for different breast cancer irradiation techniques and to compare results with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). Three breast radiotherapy techniques using 6MV tangential photon beams were compared: (a) 2DRT (open rectangular fields), (b) 3DCRT (conformal wedged fields), and (c) hybrid IMRT (open conformal+modulated fields). Over 35 organs were contoured in a whole-body CT scan and organ-specific dose distributions were determined with MC and the TPS. Large differences in out-of-field doses were observed between MC and TPS calculations, even for organs close to the target volume such as the heart, the lungs and the contralateral breast (up to 70% difference). MC simulations showed that a large fraction of the out-of-field dose comes from the out-of-field head scatter fluence (>40%) which is not adequately modeled by the TPS. Based on MC simulations, the 3DCRT technique using external wedges yielded significantly higher doses (up to a factor 4-5 in the pelvis) than the 2DRT and the hybrid IMRT techniques which yielded similar out-of-field doses. In sharp contrast to popular belief, the IMRT technique investigated here does not increase the out-of-field dose compared to conventional techniques and may offer the most optimal plan. The 3DCRT technique with external wedges yields the largest out-of-field doses. For accurate out-of-field dose assessment, a commercial TPS should not be used, even for organs near the target volume (contralateral breast, lungs, heart).

Importance of a three-dimensional measure of humeral head subluxation in osteoarthritic shoulders.

HYPOTHESIS: During total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), humeral head subluxation may be difficult to manage. Furthermore, there is a risk for postoperative recurrence of subluxation, affecting the outcome of TSA. An accurate evaluation of the subluxation is necessary to evaluate this risk. Currently, subluxation is measured in 2 dimensions (2D), usually relative to the glenoid face. The goal of this study was to extend this measure to 3 dimensions (3D) to compare glenohumeral and scapulohumeral subluxation and to evaluate the association of subluxation with the glenoid version. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study analyzed 112 computed tomography scans of osteoarthritic shoulders. We extended the usual 2D definition of glenohumeral subluxation, scapulohumeral subluxation, and glenoid version by measuring their orientation in 3D relative to the scapular plane and the scapular axis. We evaluated statistical associations between subluxation and version in 2D and 3D. RESULTS: Orientation of subluxation and version covered all sectors of the glenoid surface. Scapulohumeral subluxation and glenoid version were highly correlated in amplitude (R(2) = 0.71; P < .01) and in orientation (R(2) = 0.86; P < .01). Approximately every degree of glenoid version induced 1% of scapulohumeral subluxation in the same orientation of the version. Conversely, glenohumeral subluxation was not correlated to glenoid version in 2D or in 3D. CONCLUSIONS: Orientation of the humeral subluxation is rarely within the arbitrary computed tomography plane and should therefore be measured in 3D to detect out-of-plane subluxation. Scapulohumeral subluxation and glenoid version measured in 3D could bring valuable information for decision making during TSA.