Evaluation of sparing organs at risk (OARs) in left-breast irradiation in the supine and prone positions and with deep inspiration breath-hold

Comparison of prone and supine positioning for breast cancer radiotherapy using REQUITE data: dosimetry, acute and two years physician and patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Most patients receive whole breast radiotherapy in a supine position. However, two randomised trials showed lower acute toxicity in prone position. Furthermore, in most patients, prone positioning reduced doses to the organs at risk. To confirm these findings, we compared toxicity outcomes, photographic assessment, and dosimetry between both positions using REQUITE data.

METHODS

REQUITE is an international multi-centre prospective observational study that recruited 2069 breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Data on toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and dosimetry were collected, as well as a photographic assessment. A matched case control analysis compared patients treated prone (n = 268) versus supine (n = 493). Exact matching was performed for the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, boost, lymph node irradiation, chemotherapy and fractionation, and the nearest neighbour for breast volume. Primary endpoints were dermatitis at the end of radiotherapy, and atrophy and cosmetic outcome by photographic assessment at two years.

RESULTS

At the last treatment fraction, there was no significant difference in dermatitis (p = .28) or any HRQoL domain, but prone positioning increased the risk of breast oedema (p < .001). At 2 years, patients treated in prone position had less atrophy (p = .01), and higher body image (p < .001), and social functioning (p < .001) scores. The photographic assessment showed no difference in cosmesis at 2 years (p = .22). In prone position, mean heart dose (MHD) was significantly lower for left-sided patients (1.29 Gy vs 2.10 Gy, p < .001) and ipsilateral mean lung dose (MLD) was significantly lower for all patients (2.77 Gy vs 5.89 Gy, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prone radiotherapy showed lower MLD and MHD compared to supine position, although the risk of developing breast oedema during radiotherapy was higher. At 2 years the photographic assessment showed no difference in the cosmetic outcome, but less atrophy was seen in prone-treated patients and this seems to have a positive influence on the HRQoL domain of body image.

Current Cardioprotective Strategies for the Prevention of Radiation-Induced Cardiotoxicity in Left-Sided Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in females, accounting for the majority of cancer-related deaths worldwide. There is well-established understanding about the effective role of radiotherapy (RT) in BC therapeutic strategies, offering a better local-regional control, prolonged survival, and improved quality of life for patients. However, it has been proven that conventional RT modalities, especially in left-sided BC cases, are unable to avoid the administration of high RT doses to the heart, thus resulting in cardiotoxicity and promoting long-term cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Recent radiotherapeutic techniques, characterized by dosimetric dose restrictions, target volume revision/modifications, an increased awareness of risk factors, and consistent follow-ups, have created an advantageous context for a significant decrease inpost-RT CVD incidence.

AIM

This review presents the fundamental role of current cardioprotective strategies in the prevention of cardiotoxic effects in left-BCRT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted up to January 2023 using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed Central databases. Our review refers to new radiotherapeutic techniques carried out on patients after BC surgery. Specifically, a dose evaluation of the heart and left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) was pointed out for all the included studies, depending on the implemented RT modality, bed positioning, and internal mammary lymph nodes radiation.

RESULTS

Several studies reporting improved heart sparing with new RT techniques in BC patients were searched. In addition to the RT modality, which definitely determines the feasibility of achieving lower doses for the organs at risk (OARs), better target coverage, dose conformity and homogeneity, and the patient's position, characteristics, and anatomy may also affect the evaluated RT dose to the whole heart and its substructures.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern BC RT techniques seem to enable the administration of lower doses to the OARs without compromising on the target coverage. The analysis of several anatomical parameters and the assessment of cardiac biomarkers potentiate the protective effect of these new irradiation modalities, providing a holistic approach to the radiation-associated risks of cardiac disease for BC patients. Despite technological advances, an inevitable cardiac radiation risk still exists, while adverse cardiac events may be observed even many years after RT. Studies with longer follow-ups are required in order to determine the effectiveness of modern breast RT techniques.

Four irradiation and three positioning techniques for whole-breast radiotherapy: Is sophisticated always better?

PURPOSE

We report on a dosimetrical study of three patient positions (supine, prone dive, and prone crawl) and four irradiation techniques for whole-breast irradiation (WBI): wedged-tangential fields (W-TF), tangential-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT), multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT), and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). This is the first study to evaluate prone crawl positioning in WBI and the first study to quantify dosimetrical and anatomical differences with prone dive positioning.

METHODS

We analyzed five datasets with left- and right-sided patients (n = 51). One dataset also included deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) data. A total of 252 new treatment plans were composed. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs). Furthermore, anatomical differences among patient positions were quantified to explain dosimetrical differences.

RESULTS

Target coverage was inferior for W-TF and supine position. W-TF proved overall inferior, and IMAT proved foremost effective in supine position. TF-IMRT proved competitive to the more demanding MB-IMRT and IMAT in prone dive, but not in prone crawl position. The lung-sparing effect was overall confirmed for both prone dive and prone crawl positioning and was largest for prone crawl. For the heart, no differences were found between prone dive and supine positioning, whereas prone crawl showed cardiac advantages, although minor compared to the established heart-sparing effect of DIBH. Dose differences for contralateral breast were minor among the patient positions. In prone crawl position, the ipsilateral breast sags deeper and the PTV is further away from the OARs than in prone dive position.

CONCLUSIONS

The prone dive and prone crawl position are valid alternatives to the supine position in WBI, with largest advantages for lung structures. For the heart, differences are small, which establishes the role of DIBH in different patient positions. These results may be of particular interest to radiotherapy centers with limited technical resources.

Retrospective Analysis for Dose Reduction to Organs at Risk with New Personalized Breast Holder (PERSBRA) in Left Breast IMRT

This study evaluated dose differences in normal organs at risk, such as the lungs, heart, left anterior descending artery (LAD), right coronary artery, left ventricle, and right breast under personalized breast holder (PERSBRA), when using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study evaluated the radiation protection offered by PERSBRA in left breast cancer radiation therapy. Here, we retrospectively collected data from 24 patients with left breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery as well as IMRT radiotherapy. We compared the dose differences in target coverage and organs at risk with and without PERSBRA. For target coverage, tumor prescribed dose 95% coverage, conformity index, and homogeneity index were evaluated. For organs at risk, we compared the mean heart dose, mean left ventricle dose, LAD maximum and mean dose, mean left lung receiving 20 Gy, 10 Gy, and 5 Gy of left lung volume, maximum and mean coronary artery of the right, maximum of right breast, and mean dose. Good target coverage was achieved with and without PERSBRA. When PERSBRA was used with IMRT, the mean dose of the heart decreased by 42%, the maximum dose of LAD decreased by 26.4%, and the mean dose of LAD decreased by 47.0%. The mean dose of the left ventricle decreased by 54.1%, the volume (V₂₀) of the left lung that received 20 Gy decreased by 22.8%, the volume (V₁₀) of the left lung that received 10 Gy decreased by 19.8%, the volume (V₅) of the left lung that received 5 Gy decreased by 15.7%, and the mean dose of the left lung decreased by 23.3%. Using PERSBRA with IMRT greatly decreases the dose to organs at risk (left lung, heart, left ventricle, and LAD). This study found that PERSBRA with IMRT can achieve results similar to deep inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy (DIBH) in terms of reducing the heart radiation dose and the risk of developing heart disease in patients with left breast cancer who cannot undergo DIBH.

Comparison of Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Versus Free Breathing in Radiotherapy for Left Sided Breast Cancer

Objectives

Modern breast cancer techniques, such as the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique has been applied for left-sided breast cancer. Whether the DIBH regimen is the optimal solution for left-sided breast cancer remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to elucidate the differences of DIBH and free-breathing (FB) for patients receiving radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer and provide a practical reference for clinical practice.

Methods

Relevant research available on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science published before November 30, 2021 was independently and systematically examined by two investigators. Data were extracted from eligible studies for assessing their qualities and calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager software 5.4 (RevMan 5.4).

Results

Forty-one studies with a total of 3599 left-sided breast cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with FB, DIBH reduced heart dose (Dmean, Dmax, V30, V10, V5), left anterior descending branch (LAD) dose (Dmean, Dmax), ipsilateral lung dose (Dmean, V20, V10, V5), and heart volume significantly. Lung volume increased greatly, and a statistically significant difference. For contralateral breast mean dose, DIBH has no obvious advantage over FB. The funnel plot suggested this study has no significant publication bias.

Conclusions

Although DIBH has no obvious advantage over FB in contralateral breast mean dose, it can significantly reduce heart dose, LAD dose, ipsilateral lung dose, and heart volume. Conversely, it can remarkably increase the ipsilateral lung volume. This study suggests that soon DIBH could be more widely utilized in clinical practice because of its excellent dosimetric performance.

Prone position versus supine position in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis evaluates the difference of sparing organs at risk (OAR) in different position (Prone position and Supine position) with different breathing patterns (Free breathing, FB/Deep inspiration breath hold, DIBH) for breast cancer patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy and provides a useful reference for clinical practice.

METHOD

The relevant controlled trials of prone position versus supine position in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer were retrieved from the sources of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and ClinicalTrails.gov. The principal outcome of interest was OAR doses (heart dose, left anterior descending coronary artery dose and ipsilateral lung dose) and target coverage. We mainly compared the effects of P-FB (Prone position FB) and S-FB (Supine position FB) and discussed the effects of DIBH combined with different positions on OAR dose in postoperative radiotherapy. We calculated summary standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

The analysis included 751 patients from 19 observational studies. Compared with the S-FB, the P-FB can have lower heart dose, left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) dose, and ipsilateral lung dose (ILL) more effectively, and the difference was statistically significant (heart dose, SMD = - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.66 ∼ - 0.36, P < .00001. LADCA dose, SMD = - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.85 ∼ - 0.31, P < .0001. ILL dose, SMD = - 2.84, 95% CI - 3.2 ∼ - 2.48, P < .00001). And there was no significant difference in target coverage between the S-FB and P-FB groups (SMD = - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.57 ∼ 0.36, P = .66). Moreover, through descriptive analysis, we found that P-DIBH (Prone position DIBH) has better sparing OAR than P-FB and S-DIBH (Supine position DIBH).

CONCLUSION

By this meta-analysis, compared with the S-FB we found that implementation of P-FB in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer can reduce irradiation of heart dose, LADCA dose and ILL dose, without compromising mean dose of target coverage. Moreover, P-DIBH might become the most promising way for breast cancer patients to undergo radiotherapy.

Skin dose in radiation treatment of the left breast: Analysis in the context of prone versus supine treatment technique

PURPOSE

To determine how the skin dose varies in patients receiving radiation treatment for breast cancer in the prone and supine positions.

METHODS

Fifty patients were scanned in the prone and supine positions. A radiation treatment plan was created for the left breast using a 6-MV beam for a prescribed dose of 42.66 Gy in 16 fractions. The dose was calculated using 1- and 2.5-mm calculation grid sizes and the surface dose was compared in both techniques.

RESULTS

The median gantry angles relative to the skin surface at the central axis were 8 and 52 degrees for treatment in the prone and supine positions, respectively. The mean dose difference between the prone and supine techniques was statistically significant from 3- to 5-mm depth for both grid sizes. For the 1-mm calculation grid size, the doses at 3-, 4-, and 5-mm depths in the prone and supine techniques were 87.80% and 89.10% (P < 0.003), 91.92% and 94.50% (P < 0.00), and 95.30% and 98.20% (P < 0.00), respectively; for the 2.5-mm grid size, the respective doses were 87.10% and 88.59% (P < 0.00), 91.60% and 94.63% (P < 0.00), and 95.10% and 97.80% (P < 0.00), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the prone technique facilitates a relatively lower skin dose than the supine technique. This observation is probably due to the beam angle. The beam is more perpendicular to the skin surface in the prone technique, whereas it is more tangential in the supine technique, which may deliver a higher skin dose. Thus, the dose to the skin should be evaluated in the prone technique, and if desired, the skin dose could be carefully augmented via a bolus or beam spoiler.

Trends and Correlates of Mean Lung Dose in Patients Receiving Breast Radiotherapy in a Single Institution from 2014 to 2018

AIMS

Higher mean lung dose (MLD) in breast cancer patients has been associated with pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis and secondary lung cancer primaries. This study examined MLD in a single institution from 2014 to 18 to assess trends in median MLD (Gy) over time and factors associated with higher MLD to determine best practices for limiting lung toxicity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

General linear regressions were analysed to determine significant change in median MLD over time in patients receiving conventional or hypofractionated schedules for whole breast/chest wall (WB) radiotherapy with or without sequential boost or simultaneous integrated boost, WB tangential radiotherapy only and WB locoregional radiotherapy. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analysed identified factors associated with MLD.

RESULTS

In total, 3894 patients were included in the analysis. The total median MLD across all years was 6.8 Gy in patients treated with conventional fractionation and 3.4 Gy in patients treated with hypofractionation. A significant increase in MLD was observed between 2014 and 2018 in patients receiving conventional or hypofractionation, conventional WB treatment with locoregional radiotherapy, conventional WB radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost and hypofractionated WB radiotherapy with sequential boost. Increased MLD was significantly correlated with lower lung volume and larger treatment volume due to locoregional radiotherapy, inclusion of a boost, chest wall treatment and reverse decubitus or supine positioning (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

A significant increase in MLD was observed over the years in patients receiving conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy. Techniques such as prone positioning should be considered to lower MLD, particularly for patients with predisposing pulmonary risk.

Evaluation of the heart and lung dosimetric parameters in deep inspiration breath hold using 3D Slicer

Purpose

The present study was conducted to compare dosimetric parameters for the heart and left lung between free breathing (FB) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and determine the most important potential factors associated with increasing the lung dose for left-sided breast radiotherapy using image analysis with 3D Slicer software.

Materials and Methods

Computed tomography-simulation scans in FB and DIBH were obtained from 17 patients with left-sided breast cancer. After contouring, three-dimensional conformal plans were generated for them. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy to the clinical target volume. In addition to the dosimetric parameters, the irradiated volumes and both displacement magnitudes and vectors for the heart and left lung were assessed using 3D Slicer software.

Results

The average of the heart mean dose (D_mean) decreased from 5.97 to 3.83 Gy and V₂₅ from 7.60% to 3.29% using DIBH (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the average of D_mean for the left lung was changed from 8.67 to 8.95 Gy (p = 0.389) and V₂₀ from 14.84% to 15.44% (p = 0.387). Both of the absolute and relative irradiated heart volumes decreased from 42.12 to 15.82 mL and 8.16% to 3.17%, respectively (p < 0.001); however, these parameters for the left lung increased from 124.32 to 223.27 mL (p < 0.001) and 13.33% to 13.99% (p = 0.350). In addition, the average of heart and left lung displacement magnitudes were calculated at 7.32 and 20.91 mm, respectively.

Conclusion

The DIBH is an effective technique in the reduction of the heart dose for tangentially treated left sided-breast cancer patients, without a detrimental effect on the left lung.

A Prospective Trial to Compare Deep Inspiratory Breath Hold With Prone Breast Irradiation

PURPOSE

To compare heart and lung doses for adjuvant whole breast irradiation (WBI) between radiation plans generated supine with deep inspiratory breath hold (S-DIBH) and prone with free-breathing (P-FB) and examine the effect of breast volume (BV) on dosimetric parameters.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with left breast ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer receiving adjuvant WBI were enrolled on a single-institutional prospective protocol. Patients were simulated S-DIBH and P-FB; plans were generated using both scans. Wilcoxon signed-rank and rank-sum tests were used to compare intrapatient differences between plans for the entire cohort and within BV groups defined by tertiles.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled. Thirty-four patients are included in the analysis owing to patient withdrawal or inability to hold breath. With WBI dose of 4005 to 4256 cGy, mean heart dose (MHD) was 80 cGy in S-DIBH and 77 cGy in P-FB (P = .08). Mean ipsilateral lung dose (MLD) was 453 cGy in S-DIBH and 45 cGy in P-FB (P < .0001). Mean and max left anterior descending artery doses were 251 cGy and 551 cGy in S-DIBH, respectively (P = .1), and 324 cGy and 993 cGy in P-FB, respectively (P = .3). Hot spot and separation were 109% and 22 cm in S-DIBH, respectively, and 107% and 16 cm in P-FB, respectively (P < .0001). For patients with smallest BV, S-DIBH improved MHD and left anterior descending artery doses; for those with largest BV, P-FB improved cardiac dosimetry. With increasing BV, there was an increasing advantage of P-FB for MHD (P = .05), and max (P = .03) and mean (P = .02) left anterior descending artery doses, and the reduction in MLD, hot spot, and separation with P-FB increased (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

MHD did not differ between P-FB and S-DIBH, whereas MLD was significantly lower with P-FB. Analysis according to breast volume revealed improved cardiac dosimetry with S-DIBH for women with smallest BV and improved cardiac dosimetry with P-FB for women with larger BV, thereby providing a dosimetric rationale for using breast size to help determine the optimal positioning for WBI.

External-beam partial breast irradiation in a supine versus prone position after breast-conserving surgery for Chinese breast cancer patients

To investigate the differences in target volumes and dosimetric parameters between the supine and prone positions for external-beam partial breast irradiation (EB-PBI) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for Chinese breast cancer patients, thirty breast cancer patients who underwent three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) EB-PBI after BCS were enrolled. Supine and prone scan sets were acquired during free breathing for all patients. Target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) including the heart, ipsilateral lung and bilateral breast were contoured by the same radiation oncologist. For each patient, supine and prone EB-PBI plans were generated based on the same planning criteria. The clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) in the prone position were significantly greater than those in the supine position (P = 0.003, 0.004, respectively). A 0.95 Gy reduction in the mean dose (D_mean) to the heart (P = 0.000) was apparent in the supine position compared to the prone position. The D_mean to the ipsilateral lung was significantly lower in the prone position than in the supine position (1.59 Gy vs. 1.72 Gy, P = 0.029). Therefore, for Chinese breast cancer patients, carrying out 3DCRT EB-PBI in the prone position during free breathing is feasible.