  Purpose: The aim of this work was, a) to assess two treatment planning
strategies for accounting CT-artifacts introduced by temporary
tissue-expanders(TTEs); b) to evaluate the dosimetric impact of two
commercially available and one novel TTE. MethodsThe CT artifacts were managed
using two strategies. 1) Identifying the metal in the RayStation treatment
planning software (TPS) using image window level adjustments, delineate a
contour enclosing the artifact, and setting the density of the surrounding
voxels to unity (RS1). 2) Registering a geometry template with dimensions and
materials from the TTEs (RS2). Both strategies were compared for DermaSpan,
AlloX2, and AlloX2-Pro TTEs using Collapsed-Cone-Convolution (CCC) in
RayStation TPS, Monte Carlo simulations (MC) using TOPAS, and films. Wax slab
phantoms with TTEs and breast phantoms with TTEs balloons were made and
irradiated with a 6 MV AP beam and partial arc, respectively. Results: For the
wax slab phantoms, the dose differences between RS1 and RS2 were 0.5% for
DermaSpan and AlloX2 but 3% for AlloX2-Pro. From TOPAS simulations of RS2, the
impact in dose distributions caused by the magnet attenuation was (6.4+-0.4)%,
(4.9+-0.7)%, and (2.0+-0.9)% for DermaSpan, AlloX2, and AlloX2-Pro. With breast
phantoms, maximum differences in DVH parameters between RS1 and RS2 were as
follows. For AlloX2 at the posterior region: (2.1+-1.0)%, (1.9+-1.0)% and
(1.4+-1.0)% for D1, D10, and average dose, respectively. For AlloX2-Pro at the
anterior region (-1.0+-1.0)%, (-0.6+-1.0)% and (-0.6+-1.0)% for D1, D10 and
average dose, respectively. The impact in D10 caused by the magnet was at most
(5.5+-1.0)% and (-0.8+-1.0)% for AlloX2 and AlloX2-Pro, respectively.
Conclusion: This study showed that the highest differences with respect to
measurements occurred with RS1 and can be mitigated if a template with the
actual port geometry and materials is used.
