This study aimed to determine the suitable breast treatment technique for a small facility’s hospital with limited staff and equipment resources. The benefits and drawbacks of each technique should be considered to guide radiation oncologists choose the appropriate treatment option for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) patients.

This study included the computed tomography images of 15 patients who received left-sided PMRT. The patient’s characteristics were classified into two groups: 1. irradiation of only the chest wall (CW) and 2. CW lymph nodes plus supraclavicular lymph nodes (SPCs). All 15 PMRT patients were generated in 4 treatment techniques including 3DCRT, field-in-field (FiF), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and hybrid (3DCRT + IMRT). Each treatment technique’s dosimetric parameters and treatment time were compared.

All four treatment plans met the acceptable criteria. The IMRT plans achieved the highest plan quality scores for two groups of PMRT patients but require the longest treatment time, whereas the 3DCRT and FiF plans demonstrated superiority for organ at risk (OAR) sparing and required the shortest treatment time when compared with the IMRT and hybrid plans.

The IMRT plan had the highest plan quality but required the most time to treat. Treatment times are critical in facilities with limited resources. As a result, the FiF plan was found to be a suitable technique for both CW-only and CW plus SPC irradiation due to its short treatment time and high plan quality scores for OAR dose sparing.

To propose a new matching method for the supraclavicular (SC) and tangential fields on three-dimensional radiotherapy (3DRT) for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).

A method of matching coplanar field borders (CFB) between the tangential and SC fields was created in 3DRT. The collimator angle of the medial tangential field was calculated to coplanar the SC field. The proposed method performance was ultimately benchmarked using the half beam block (HBB) and traditional three-field monoisocenter (TTM) methods by dosimetric comparison. The decision score was then employed to clarify the performance among these methods.

The results show that the TTM method exhibited not only low doses on the organs at risk (OAR) but also on the matching fields. The CFB and HBB produced comparable results, but the ipsilateral lung yielded lesser amounts than the HBB. The decision score indicated a low performance level when using the TTM method, whereas the CBF method exhibited a slightly higher performance score than the HBB.

The CFB exhibited good performance in terms of the dose on OARs and at the matching fields. This method offers a comparable level of performance to the HBB. Thus, the CFB offers an alternative method of significant interest in PMRT.