ESTRO meets Asia 2024 - Abstract Book

S382

RTT – Service evaluation, quality assurance and risk management

ESTRO meets Asia 2024

Compared to FB, DIBH significantly reduced MHD (438.34 ± 123.39 cGy vs. 287.11 ± 53.13 cGy, P < 0.001), V 5 Gy −V 30 Gy and mean left lung dose. The dose differences in target area and mean right lung dose between the FB and DIBH plans were not significant. Compared to the low-risk group, patients in the high-risk group had significantly higher MHD (336.04 ± 46.97 cGy vs. 531.34 ± 92.12 cGy, P < 0.001), V 5 Gy -V 30 Gy (P < 0.05), and risk of cardiac death (0.08 ± 0.06% vs. 0.70 ± 0.42%, P = 0.001). In addition, the magnitude of DIBH benefit was significantly higher in patients in the high-risk group for MHD (80.56 ± 33.32 cGy vs. 215.46 ± 88.84 cGy, P < 0.001), V 10 Gy -V 30 Gy (P < 0.05), and risk of cardiac death (0.06 ± 0.05% vs. 0.61 ± 0.37%, P = 0.001). The CCED had the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97, with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity at the optimal cutoff value of 1.74 mm.

Conclusion:

A dose threshold FB-MHD of 4 Gy is reliable for selecting DIBH candidates. Creating a model to assess CCED is a quick and effective method to select the candidates.

Keywords: Breast cancer, Radiotherapy, Patient selection