<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ONAL, CEM</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BOZCA, RECEP</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DOLEK, YEMLIHA</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ELMALI, AYSENUR</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">GULER, OZAN CEM</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Comparative Analysis of Implant-sparing Plan &lt;em&gt;Versus&lt;/em&gt; Conventional Plans Utilizing Helical Tomotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Vivo</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2024</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2024-05-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1412-1420</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.21873/invivo.13583</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Background/Aim: To compare implant sparing irradiation with conventional radiotherapy (RT) using helical (H) and TomoDirect (TD) techniques in breast cancer patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Patients and Methods: The dosimetric parameters of 40 patients with retropectoral implants receiving 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions were analyzed. Three plans were created: H plan using conventional planning target volume (PTV) that included the chest wall, skin, and implant; TD plan using conventional PTV; and Hs plan using implant-sparing PTV. The H, TD, and Hs plans were compared for PTV doses, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and treatment times. Results: Dose distribution in the Hs plan was less homogeneous and uniform than that in the H and TD plans. The TD plan had lower lung, heart, contralateral breast, spinal cord, liver, and esophagus doses than the Hs plan. Compared to the Hs plan, the H plan had lower lung volume receiving 5Gy (V5) (39.1±3.9 vs. 41.2±3.9 Gy; p&lt;0.001), higher V20 (12.3±1.3 vs. 11.5±2.6 Gy; p=0.02), and higher V30 (7.5±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.7 Gy; p&lt;0.001). H plan outperformed Hs plan in heart dosimetric parameters except V20. The Hs plan had significantly lower mean implant doses (43.4±2.1 Gy) than the H plan (51.4±0.5 Gy; p&lt;0.001) and the TD plan (51.9±0.6 Gy; p&lt;0.001). Implementing an implant sparing technique for silicone dose reduction decreases lung doses. Conclusion: Conventional H and TD plans outperform the implant sparing helical plan dosimetrically. Because capsular contracture during RT is unpredictable, long-term clinical outcomes are required to determine whether silicon should be spared.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>