Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 21, Number 6, 2016

Dosimetric feasibility of an “off-breast isocenter” technique for whole-breast cancer radiotherapy

Juan-Francisco Calvo-Ortega, Sandra Moragues, Miquel Pozo, Joan Casals



To investigate the viability of placing the treatment isocenter at the patient midline for breast cancer radiotherapy in order to avoid the risk of collisions during image-guided setup and treatment delivery.


The use of kilovoltage orthogonal setup images has spread in last years in breast radiotherapy. There is a potential risk of an imaging system–patient collision when the isocenter is laterally placed.

Materials and methods

Twenty IMRT plans designed by placing the isocenter within the breast volume (“plan_ref”), were retrospectively replanned by shifting the isocenter at the patient's midline (“plan_off-breast”). An integrated simultaneous boost (SIB) technique was used. Multiple metrics for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for both approaches using a paired t test.


Comparing plan_ref vs. plan_off-breast, no significant differences in PTV coverage (V95%) were found (96.5% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.361 to PTVbreast; 97.0% vs. 97.0%; p = 0.977 to PTVtumor_bed). With regard to OARs, no substantial differences were observed in any analyzed metric: V5Gy (30.3% vs. 31.4%; p = 0.486), V20Gy (10.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.903) and mean dose (7.1 Gy vs. 7.1 Gy; p = 0.924) to the ipsilateral lung; V5Gy (11.2% vs. 10.0%; p = 0.459), V30Gy (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.251) and mean dose (2.3 Gy vs. 2.2 Gy; p = 0.400) to the heart; and average dose to the contralateral breast (0.4 Gy vs. 0.5 Gy; p = 0.107).


The off-breast isocenter solution resulted in dosimetrically comparable plans as the reference technique, avoiding the collision risk during the treatment session.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2016; 21(6) : 500-507

« back


Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.