Breast electron boost planning: comparison of CT and US.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 11274557.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To compare computed tomography (CT) with ultrasonography (US) for depiction of the biopsy cavity. Thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent radiation therapy following lumpectomy with a planned electron boost were examined. At the time of simulation for whole-breast radiation therapy, all patients underwent planning CT (CT 1) at 3-mm section intervals. At the time of electron boost simulation, US was performed to define the biopsy cavity. In 17 cases, a second CT examination (CT 2) was performed at the time of electron boost simulation. CT and US studies were reviewed jointly and assigned a cavity visualization score (CVS) of 1 (cavity not visualized) to 5 (all cavity margins clearly defined). The median CVS at CT 1 was 5; at CT 2, 4; and at US, 4. For patients who underwent all three studies, the median CVS at CT 1 was 5; at CT 2, 4; and at US, 4. Factors related to CVS at CT 1 were homogeneous versus heterogeneous appearance (score, 5 vs 4), surgery-to-CT interval (< or =30 days, 5; 31-60 days, 4; >60 days, 4), and cavity size (>15 cm(3), 5; <15 cm(3), 4). In all cases, cavity volume decreased somewhat during the CT 1-to-CT 2 interval. CT performed at the time of whole-breast simulation can be used to plan electron boost fields, with cavity visualization similar to that at US.
Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms
- Mastectomy, Segmental
- Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
- Tomography, X-Ray Computed
- Ultrasonography, Mammary