PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Alina Mihai

Publications and source records attributed to Alina Mihai.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Inverse vs. forward breast IMRT planning.

Breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) improves dose distribution homogeneity within the whole breast. Previous publications report the use of inverse or forward dose optimization algorithms. Because the inverse technique is not widely available in commercial treatment planning systems, it is important to compare the 2 algorithms. The goal of this work is to compare them on a prospective cohort of 30 patients. Dose distributions were evaluated on differential dose-volume histograms using the volumes receiving more than 105% (V(105)) and 110% (V(110)) of the prescribed dose, and on the maximum dose (D(max)) or hot spot and the sagittal dose gradient (SDG) being the gradient between the dose on inframammary crease and the dose prescribed. The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. The inverse planning significantly improves the V(105) (mean value 9.7% vs. 14.5%, p=0.002), and the V(110) (mean value 1.4% vs. 3.2%, p=0.006). However, the SDG is not statistically significantly different for either algorithm. Looking at the potential impact on skin acute reaction, although there is a significant reduction of V(110) using an inverse algorithm, it is unlikely this 1.6% volume reduction will present a significant clinical advantage over a forward algorithm. Both algorithms are equivalent in removing the hot spots on the inframammary fold, where acute skin reactions occur more frequently using a conventional wedge technique. Based on these results, we recommend that both forward and inverse algorithms should be considered for breast IMRT planning.

Algorithms↗

Is expert breast pathology assessment necessary for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ ?

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines include a recommendation that a pathologist with expertise in breast disease review all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) specimens due to the presence of significant variability in pathologic reporting of DCIS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of pathologic reporting of DCIS over the past decade and to determine the current impact of expert breast pathology assessment on the management of DCIS. METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of DCIS referred to a single regional cancer centre between 1982 and 2000 have been reviewed. Inter-observer variability between initial and secondary reports has been evaluated using kappa statistics. For each case, the Van Nuys Prognostic Index (VNPI) using pathologic data obtained from the initial and reviewed pathology reports were compared. The impact of expert breast pathology on risk assessment and treatment was determined. RESULTS: 481 individuals with DCIS were referred and pathology review was performed on 350 patients (73%). Inter-observer agreement was high for the main pathologic features of DCIS. From 1996 to 2000, secondary pathology assessments lead to a change in the assessment of local recurrence risk in 100 cases (29%) and contributed to a change in treatment recommendation in 93 (43%) cases. CONCLUSION: Expert breast pathology assessments continue to be necessary in the management of DCIS.

Adult↗