1
|
Marignol L, McMahon SJ. Research Trends in the Study of the Relative Biological Effectiveness: A Bibliometric Study. Radiat Res 2024; 202:177-184. [PMID: 38918000 DOI: 10.1667/rade-24-00023.1.s1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2024] [Accepted: 04/23/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024]
Abstract
The relative biological effectiveness is a mathematical quantity first defined in the 1950s. This has resulted in more than 4,000 scientific papers published to date. Yet defining the correct value of the RBE to use in clinical practice remains a challenge. A scientific analysis in the radiation research literature can provide an understanding of how this mathematical quantity has evolved. The purpose of this study is to investigate documents published since 1950 using bibliometric indicators and network visualization. This analysis seeks to provide an assessment of global research activities, key themes, and RBE research within the radiation-related field. It strives to highlight top-performing authors, organizations, and nations that have made major contributions to this research domain, as well as their interactions. The Scopus Collection was searched for articles and reviews pertaining to RBE in radiation research from 1950 through 2023. Scopus and Bibiometrix analytic tools were used to investigate the most productive countries, researchers, collaboration networks, journals, along with the citation analysis of references and keywords. A total of 4,632 documents were retrieved produced by authors originating from 71 countries. Publication trends could be separated in 20-year groupings beginning with slow accrual from 1950 to 1970, an early rise from 1970-1990, followed by a sharp increase in the years 1990s-2010s that matches the development of charged particle therapy in clinics worldwide and opened discussion on the true value of the RBE in proton beam therapy. Since the 2010s, a steady 200 papers, on average, have been published per year. The United States produced the most publications overall (N = 1,378) and Radiation Research was the most likely journal to have published articles related to the RBE (606 publications during this period). J. Debus was the most prolific author (112 contributions, with 2,900 citations). The RBE has captured the research interest of over 7,000 authors in the past decade alone. This study supports that notion that the growth of the body of evidence surrounding the RBE, which started 75 years ago, is far from reaching its end. Applications to medicine have continuously dominated the field, with physics competing with Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology for second place over the decades. Future research can be predicted to continue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Marignol
- Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity (ARTT), Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - S J McMahon
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Huang EY, Ho MW, Wang YM. Dosimetric Correlation of Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy Using Pencil Beam Scanning. J Breast Cancer 2024; 27:187-200. [PMID: 38769685 PMCID: PMC11221205 DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2024.0012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2024] [Revised: 02/24/2024] [Accepted: 03/31/2024] [Indexed: 05/22/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Pencil-beam scanning (PBS) is a modern delivery technique used in proton beam therapy (PBT) to reduce normal tissue reactions. No dosimetric correlation between dermatitis and PBS has been reported for breast cancer. The current study aimed to investigate the factors associated with grade 2 or higher dermatitis in patients with breast cancer undergoing PBT using PBS. METHODS The medical data of 42 patients with breast cancer who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy between December 2019 and September 2023 were reviewed. All patients received hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), either 26 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE])/five fractions or 40.05 or 43.5 Gy (RBE)/15 fractions, for the whole breast/chest wall with or without nodal irradiation. The duration of acute radiation dermatitis was defined as within 90 days from the start of radiotherapy. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used for univariate and multivariate analyses of the actuarial rates of grade 2-3 dermatitis. RESULTS Twenty-two (52.4%) and 20 (47.6%) patients were diagnosed with grade 1 and 2 dermatitis, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed a clinical target volume (CTV) ≥ of 320 cc (p = 0.035) and a skin dose of D10cc ≥ 38.3 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.009) as independent factors of grade 2 dermatitis. The 10-week cumulative grade 2 dermatitis rates were 88.2%, 39.4%, and 8.3% (p < 0.001) for patients with both high, either high, and neither high CTV and D10cc, respectively. CONCLUSION To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on dosimetric correlations for dermatitis in patients with breast cancer who underwent hypofractionated PBT using PBS. In the era of HFRT, skin dose modulation using PBS may reduce the incidence of dermatitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eng-Yen Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- Proton and Radiation Therapy Center, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Meng Wei Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- Proton and Radiation Therapy Center, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Ming Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- Proton and Radiation Therapy Center, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Arbab M, Frame R, Alluri P, Parsons D, Lin MH, Cleaton J, Rahimi A. Master Breast Radiation Planning: Simple Guide for Radiation Oncology Residents. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101476. [PMID: 38690296 PMCID: PMC11059315 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
This article focuses on various aspects of breast radiation treatment planning, from simulation to field design. It covers the most common techniques including tangents, mono isocentric, dual isocentric, electron-photon match, and VMAT. This can serve as a guide for radiation oncology residents and medical students to advance their understanding of key aspects of breast radiation treatment and planning processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mona Arbab
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Romona Frame
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Prasanna Alluri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - David Parsons
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Mu-Han Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Jennifer Cleaton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Asal Rahimi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chirilă ME, Kraja F, Marta GN, Neves Junior WFP, de Arruda GV, Gouveia AG, Franco P, Poortmans P, Ratosa I. Organ-sparing techniques and dose-volume constrains used in breast cancer radiation therapy - Results from European and Latin American surveys. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 46:100752. [PMID: 38425691 PMCID: PMC10900109 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2023] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/17/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Advances in local and systemic therapies have improved the outcomes of patients with breast cancer (BC), leading to a possible increased risk for postoperative radiation therapy (RT) late adverse events. The most adequate technologies and dose constraints for organs at risk (OAR) in BC RT have yet to be defined. Methods An online survey was distributed to radiation oncologists (ROs) practicing in Europe and Latin America including the Caribbean (LAC) through personal contacts, RO and BC professional groups' networks. Demographic data and clinical practice information were collected. Results The study included 585 responses from ROs practicing in 57 different countries. The most frequently contoured OAR by European and LAC participants were the whole heart (96.6 % and 97.7 %), the ipsilateral (84.3 % and 90.8 %), and contralateral lung (71.3 % and 77.4 %), whole lung (69.8 % and 72.9 %), and the contralateral breast (66.4 % and. 83.2 %). ESTRO guidelines were preferred in Europe (33.3 %) and the RTOG contouring guideline was the most popular in LAC (62.2 %), while some participants used both recommendations (13.2 % and 19.2 %). IMRT (68.6 % and 59.1 %) and VMAT (65.6 % and 60.2 %) were the preferred modalities used in heart sparing strategies, followed by deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) (54.8 % and 37.4 %) and partial breast irradiation (PBI) (41.6 % and 24.6 %). Only a small percentage of all ROs reported the dose-volume constraints for OAR used in routine clinical practice. A mean heart dose (Heart-Dmean) between 4 and 5 Gy was the most frequently reported parameter (17.2 % and 39.3 %). Conclusion The delineation approaches and sparing techniques for OAR in BC RT vary between ROs worldwide. The low response rate to the dose constraints subset of queries reflects the uncertainty surrounding this topic and supports the need for detailed consensus recommendations in the clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monica-Emila Chirilă
- Radiation Oncology Department, Amethyst Radiotherapy Centre, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Clinical Development, MVision AI, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Fatjona Kraja
- Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine Tirana, Albania
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Centre Mother Teresa, Tirana, Albania
| | - Gustavo Nader Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sirio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
- Post-Graduation Program, Radiology and Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Wellington Furtado Pimenta Neves Junior
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sirio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
- Post-Graduation Program, Radiology and Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Gustavo Viani de Arruda
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Department of Medical Imaging, Hematology and Oncology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
| | - André Guimarães Gouveia
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Sciences (DIMET), University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Iridium Netwerk, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Ivica Ratosa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Palassini E, Baldi GG, Sulfaro S, Barisella M, Bianchi G, Campanacci D, Fiore M, Gambarotti M, Gennaro M, Morosi C, Navarria F, Palmerini E, Sangalli C, Sbaraglia M, Trama A, Asaftei S, Badalamenti G, Bertulli R, Bertuzzi AF, Biagini R, Bonadonna A, Brunello A, Callegaro D, Cananzi F, Cianchetti M, Collini P, Comandini D, Curcio A, D'Ambrosio L, De Pas T, Dei Tos AP, Ferraresi V, Ferrari A, Franchi A, Frezza AM, Fumagalli E, Ghilli M, Greto D, Grignani G, Guida M, Ibrahim T, Krengli M, Luksch R, Marrari A, Mastore M, Merlini A, Milano GM, Navarria P, Pantaleo MA, Parafioriti A, Pellegrini I, Pennacchioli E, Rastrelli M, Setola E, Tafuto S, Turano S, Valeri S, Vincenzi B, Vitolo V, Ivanescu A, Paloschi F, Casali PG, Gronchi A, Stacchiotti S. Clinical recommendations for treatment of localized angiosarcoma: A consensus paper by the Italian Sarcoma Group. Cancer Treat Rev 2024; 126:102722. [PMID: 38604052 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2024] [Revised: 03/17/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/13/2024]
Abstract
Angiosarcoma (AS) represents a rare and aggressive vascular sarcoma, posing distinct challenges in clinical management compared to other sarcomas. While the current European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guidelines for sarcoma treatment are applicable to AS, its unique aggressiveness and diverse tumor presentations necessitate dedicated and detailed clinical recommendations, which are currently lacking. Notably, considerations regarding surgical extent, radiation therapy (RT), and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy vary significantly in localized disease, depending on each different site of onset. Indeed, AS are one of the sarcoma types most sensitive to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Despite this, uncertainties persist regarding optimal management across different clinical presentations, highlighting the need for further investigation through clinical trials. The Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG) organized a consensus meeting on April 1st, 2023, in Castel San Pietro, Italy, bringing together Italian sarcoma experts from several disciplines and patient representatives from "Sofia nel Cuore Onlus" and the ISG patient advocacy working group. The objective was to develop specific clinical recommendations for managing localized AS within the existing framework of sarcoma clinical practice guidelines, accounting for potential practice variations among ISG institutions. The aim was to try to standardize and harmonize clinical practices, or at least highlight the open questions in the local management of the disease, to define the best evidence-based practice for the optimal approach of localized AS and generate the recommendations presented herein.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elena Palassini
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy.
| | | | | | - Marta Barisella
- Department of Pathology, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milano, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Bianchi
- Department of Surgery, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - Domenico Campanacci
- Department of Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy
| | - Marco Fiore
- Department of Surgery, Sarcoma Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Marco Gambarotti
- Department of Pathology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - Massimiliano Gennaro
- Department of Surgery, Breast Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Carlo Morosi
- Department of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Federico Navarria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy
| | - Emanuela Palmerini
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - Claudia Sangalli
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Marta Sbaraglia
- Department of Pathology, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
| | - Annalisa Trama
- Department of Edidemiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Sebastian Asaftei
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, Ospedale Infantile Regina Margherita , Torino
| | - Giuseppe Badalamenti
- Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Policlinico Giaccone, Palermo, Italy
| | - Rossella Bertulli
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Alexia Francesca Bertuzzi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Humanitas Cancer Center, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milano, Italy
| | - Roberto Biagini
- Department of Oncological Orthopedics, IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena - Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri, Roma, Italy
| | - Angela Bonadonna
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy
| | - Antonella Brunello
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Dario Callegaro
- Department of Surgery, Sarcoma Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Ferdinando Cananzi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milano, Italy; Sarcoma, Melanoma and Rare Tumors Surgery Unit, Humanitas Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Paola Collini
- Department of Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Danila Comandini
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Annalisa Curcio
- Department of Surgery, Ospedale Morgagni e Pierantoni, Forlì, Italy
| | - Lorenzo D'Ambrosio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale S. Luigi, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
| | - Tommaso De Pas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy
| | | | - Virginia Ferraresi
- Sarcomas and Rare Tumors Departmental Unit, IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena - Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri, Roma, Italy
| | - Andrea Ferrari
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Alessandro Franchi
- Department of Pathology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Anna Maria Frezza
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Elena Fumagalli
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Matteo Ghilli
- Breast Centre, Department of Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Daniela Greto
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy
| | - Giovanni Grignani
- Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Univerisitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
| | - Michele Guida
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Tumori di Bari Giovanni Paolo II, Bari, Italy
| | - Toni Ibrahim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Krengli
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Roberto Luksch
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Andrea Marrari
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Alessandra Merlini
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale S. Luigi, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
| | | | - Piera Navarria
- Department of Radiation Therapy, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milano, Italy
| | - Maria Abbondanza Pantaleo
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna', University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Ilaria Pellegrini
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Marco Rastrelli
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology (DISCOG), Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
| | - Elisabetta Setola
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Europeo Oncologia, Milano, Italy
| | - Salvatore Tafuto
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Salvatore Turano
- Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera S.S. Annunziata, Cosenza, Italy
| | - Sergio Valeri
- Department of Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico, Roma, Italy
| | - Bruno Vincenzi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Università Campus Bio-Medico, Roma, Italy
| | - Viviana Vitolo
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Fondazione CNAO, Pavia, Italy
| | | | | | - Paolo Giovanni Casali
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Alessandro Gronchi
- Department of Surgery, Sarcoma Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Silvia Stacchiotti
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Fatima H, Abbas P, Alshehri SM. Balancing Innovation and Patient Care in Breast Cancer: Integrating Hypofractionated Proton Therapy With Breast Reconstruction Outcomes. Cureus 2024; 16:e58056. [PMID: 38738134 PMCID: PMC11088419 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/14/2024] Open
Abstract
This review aims to assess the application of hypofractionated proton therapy in breast cancer reconstruction, analyzing its advantages, challenges, and broader implications for patient care. The goal is to comprehensively understand how this innovative approach can be integrated into breast cancer treatment. Proton therapy exhibits superior target coverage and safety, reducing radiation-induced complications and sparing critical organs, but skin toxicity outcomes differ from photon therapy. Tissue expanders are vital in breast reconstruction, employing innovative planning for positive long-term outcomes and highlighting the importance of balancing cancer treatment effectiveness with cosmetic outcomes. Hypofractionated proton therapy and breast cancer reconstruction present promising innovations with notable advantages in target coverage and organ sparing. However, variations in skin toxicity outcomes and the need for a careful balance between treatment effectiveness and cosmetic outcomes underscore ongoing challenges. Future directions should focus on refining treatment protocols, optimizing patient selection criteria, and integrating emerging technologies to enhance therapeutic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hadia Fatima
- Radiation Oncology Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, SAU
| | - Paras Abbas
- Oncology Department, Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital, Nuclear Medicine Oncology and Radiotherapy Institute, Islamabad, PAK
| | - Salem M Alshehri
- Radiation Oncology Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, SAU
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Siva Kumar S, Bradley JA, Mendenhall NP, Mailhot Vega RB, Brooks ED, Okunieff PG, Giap F, Burchianti T, Daily K, Heldermon CD, Galochkina Z, Lee JH, Swarts S, O’Dell WG. Effects on Lung Tissue After Breast Cancer Radiation: Comparing Photon and Proton Therapies. Int J Part Ther 2024; 11:100006. [PMID: 38757081 PMCID: PMC11095095 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 02/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose In breast cancer, improved treatment approaches that reduce injury to lung tissue and early diagnosis and intervention for lung toxicity are increasingly important in survivorship. The aims of this study are to (1) compare lung tissue radiographic changes in women treated with conventional photon radiation therapy and those treated with proton therapy (PT), (2) assess the volume of lung irradiated to 5 Gy (V5) and 20 Gy (V20) by treatment modality, and (3) quantify the effects of V5, V20, time, and smoking history on the severity of tissue radiographic changes. Patients and Methods A prospective observational study of female breast cancer patients was conducted to monitor postradiation subclinical lung tissue radiographic changes. Repeated follow-up x-ray computed tomography scans were acquired through 2 years after treatment. In-house software was used to quantify an internally normalized measure of pulmonary tissue density change over time from the computed tomography scans, emphasizing the 6- and 12-month time points. Results Compared with photon therapy, PT was associated with significantly lower lung V5 and V20. Lung V20 (but not V5) correlated significantly with increased subclinical lung tissue radiographic changes 6 months after treatment, and neither correlated with lung effects at 12 months. Significant lung tissue density changes were present in photon therapy patients at 6 and 12 months but not in PT patients. Significant lung tissue density change persisted at 12 months in ever-smokers but not in never-smokers. Conclusion Patients treated with PT had significantly lower radiation exposure to the lungs and less statistically significant tissue density change, suggesting decreased injury and/or improved recovery compared to photon therapy. These findings motivate additional studies in larger, randomized, and more diverse cohorts to further investigate the contributions of treatment modality and smoking regarding the short- and long-term radiographic effects of radiation on lung tissue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Julie A. Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy P. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Raymond B. Mailhot Vega
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Eric D. Brooks
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Paul G. Okunieff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Fantine Giap
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Teena Burchianti
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Karen Daily
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Coy D. Heldermon
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Zhanna Galochkina
- Division of Quantitative Sciences, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Ji-Hyun Lee
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida College of Health Profession & Public Health and College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Steven Swarts
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Walter G. O’Dell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
González-Viguera J, Martínez-Pérez E, Pérez-Montero H, Arangüena M, Guedea F, Gutiérrez-Miguélez C. Hype or hope? A review of challenges in balancing tumor control and treatment toxicity in breast cancer from the perspective of the radiation oncologist. Clin Transl Oncol 2024; 26:561-573. [PMID: 37505372 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-023-03287-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/17/2023] [Indexed: 07/29/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this article is to discuss the challenges and new strategies in managing breast cancer patients, with a specific focus on radiation oncology and the importance of balancing oncologic outcomes with quality of life and post-treatment morbidity. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify advances in the management of breast cancer, exploring de-escalation strategies, hypofractionation schemes, predictors and tools for reducing toxicity (radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis, deep inspiration breath-hold, adaptive radiotherapy), enhancer treatments (hyperthermia, immunotherapy) and innovative diagnostic modalities (PET-MRI, omics). Balancing oncologic outcomes with quality of life and post-treatment morbidity is crucial in the era of personalized medicine. Radiotherapy plays a critical role in the management of breast cancer patients. Large randomized trials are necessary to generalize some practices and cost remains the main obstacle for many innovations that are already applicable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier González-Viguera
- Radiation Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - Evelyn Martínez-Pérez
- Radiation Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Héctor Pérez-Montero
- Radiation Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marina Arangüena
- Radiation Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ferran Guedea
- Radiation Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Choi S, Dreyfuss I, Taswell CS, Cyriac J, Butkus M, Takita C. Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer. Crit Rev Oncog 2024; 29:67-82. [PMID: 38683154 DOI: 10.1615/critrevoncog.2023050319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
Given the radiobiological and physical properties of the proton, proton beam therapy has the potential to be advantageous for many patients compared with conventional radiotherapy by limiting toxicity and improving patient outcomes in specific breast cancer scenarios.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seraphina Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Isabella Dreyfuss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | | | - Jonathan Cyriac
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Michael Butkus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mutter RW, Giri S, Fruth BF, Remmes NB, Boughey JC, Harless CA, Ruddy KJ, McGee LA, Afzal A, Gao RW, Shumway DA, Vern-Gross TZ, Villarraga HR, Kenison SL, Kang Y, Wong WW, Stish BJ, Merrell KW, Yan ES, Park SS, Corbin KS, Vargas CE. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:1083-1093. [PMID: 37696281 PMCID: PMC10591844 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00388-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. So far, studies investigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear. We aimed to compare conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS We did a randomised phase 2 trial (MC1631) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester (MN, USA) and Mayo Clinic in Arizona (Phoenix, AZ, USA) comparing conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) and hypofractionated (40·05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) proton PMRT. All patients were treated with pencil-beam scanning. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and breast cancer resected by mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either conventional fractionation or hypofractionation, with presence of immediate reconstruction (yes vs no) as a stratification factor, using a biased-coin minimisation algorithm. Any patient who received at least one fraction of protocol treatment was evaluable for the primary endpoint and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 24-month complication rate from the date of first radiotherapy, defined as grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring from 90 days after last radiotherapy or unplanned surgical interventions in patients with immediate reconstruction. The inferiority of hypofractionation would not be ruled out if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in 24-month complication rate between the two groups was greater than 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783690, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS Between June 2, 2016, and Aug 23, 2018, 88 patients were randomly assigned (44 to each group), of whom 82 received protocol treatment (41 in the conventional fractionation group and 41 in the hypofractionation group; median age of 52 years [IQR 44-64], 79 [96%] patients were White, two [2%] were Black or African American, one [1%] was Asian, and 79 [96%] were not of Hispanic ethnicity). As of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2023), the median follow-up was 39·3 months (IQR 37·5-61·2). The median mean heart dose was 0·54 Gy (IQR 0·30-0·72) for the conventional fractionation group and 0·49 Gy (0·25-0·64) for the hypofractionation group. Within 24 months of first radiotherapy, 14 protocol-defined complications occurred in six (15%) patients in the conventional fractionation group and in eight (20%) patients in the hypofractionation group (absolute difference 4·9% [one-sided 95% CI 18·5], p=0·27). The complications in the conventionally fractionated group were contracture (five [12%] of 41 patients]) and fat necrosis (one [2%] patient) requiring surgical intervention. All eight protocol-defined complications in the hypofractionation group were due to infections, three of which were acute infections that required surgical intervention, and five were late infections, four of which required surgical intervention. All 14 complications were in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. INTERPRETATION After a median follow-up of 39·3 months, non-inferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be established. However, given similar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients with and without immediate reconstruction. FUNDING The Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA, and the US National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| | - Sharmila Giri
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Briant F Fruth
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Yixiu Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth S Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kang Y, Bues M, Halyard MY, McGee LA, Vern-Gross TZ, Wong WW, Keole SR, Vargas C, James SE, Ahmed SK, Archuleta JP, Ridgway AK, Lara PR, Fatyga M. Dose delivery reproducibility for PBS proton treatment of breast cancer patients with and without mask immobilization. Radiat Oncol 2023; 18:157. [PMID: 37736727 PMCID: PMC10515054 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02323-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Setup reproducibility of the tissue in the proton beam path is critical in maintaining the planned clinical target volume (CTV) dose coverage and sparing the organs at risk (OAR). In this study, we retrospectively evaluated radiation therapy dose reproducibility for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatment of breast cancer patients with and without mask immobilization. METHODS Ninety-four patients treated between January 2019 and September 2022 with at least one verification CT scan (V-CT) in treatment position were included for this study. All patients were set up with arms up using the Orfit AIO patient positioning system, with (69 patients) or without (25 patients) mask immobilization in chin, neck, shoulder, upper arm, and chest areas. Two to three enface or near enface single field uniform dose PBS beams were optimized using a commercial treatment planning system. Prescription doses were 25 to 60 GyRBE in 5 to 45 fractions. Treatment plan doses re-calculated on V-CTs were compared to the corresponding planned doses. Cumulative doses were also calculated for patients with at least 3 V-CTs by deform and weighted sum doses from V-CTs to corresponding P-CTs. CTV D95%, ipsilateral-lung V40%, esophagus D0.01cc, and heart mean dose were evaluated and reported as percentages of prescription doses. Differences were large dose deteriorations (LDD) if: (1) CTV (V-CT/cumulative D95%) - (Planned D95%) < - 5%; or (2) Ipsilateral-lung (V-CT/cumulative V40%) - (Planned V40%) > 5%; or (3) Esophagus (V-CT/cumulative D0.01cc) - (Planned D0.01cc) > 10%; or (4) Heart (V-CT/cumulative mean) - (Planned mean) > 1.5%. RESULTS On average, V-CT/cumulative and planned CTV/OAR dose parameter differences were less than 2.2%/1.7% and 3.4%/3.7% for masked and maskless patients, respectively. The percentages of patients with at least one CTV or OAR V-CT/cumulative dose LDD were 20.3%/25.0% and 72.0%/54.0% for masked and maskless patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS On average, masked/maskless setups achieved delivered and planned CTV/OAR dose parameters agreed within 2.2%/3.7% for PBS treatment of breast cancer patients in this study. Maskless patients had higher rate of CTV/OAR LDDs compared to masked patients. Dosimetric differences large enough to raise clinical concerns in either group were able to be addressed with replannings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yixiu Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Michele Y Halyard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Tamara Z Vern-Gross
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Sameer R Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Sarah E James
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Safia K Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - James P Archuleta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Ana K Ridgway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Pedro R Lara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Mirek Fatyga
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5881 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kirby AM, Holt F, Taylor CW, Haviland JS, MacKenzie M, Coles CE. Should patients requiring radiotherapy for breast cancer be treated with proton beam therapy? BMJ 2023; 381:e072896. [PMID: 37295798 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Anna M Kirby
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust & Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Francesca Holt
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK
| | - Carolyn W Taylor
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK
| | - Joanne S Haviland
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Nangia S, Burela N, Noufal MP, Patro K, Wakde MG, Sharma DS. Proton therapy for reducing heart and cardiac substructure doses in Indian breast cancer patients. Radiat Oncol J 2023; 41:69-80. [PMID: 37403349 DOI: 10.3857/roj.2023.00073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 07/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Indians have a higher incidence of cardiovascular diseases, often at a younger age, than other ethnic groups. This higher baseline risk requires consideration when assessing additional cardiac morbidity of breast cancer treatment. Superior cardiac sparing is a critical dosimetric advantage of proton therapy in breast cancer radiotherapy. We report here the heart and cardiac-substructure doses and early toxicities in breast cancer patients treated post-operatively with proton therapy in India's first proton therapy center. MATERIALS AND METHODS We treated twenty breast cancer patients with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) from October 2019 to September 2022, eleven after breast conservation, nine following mastectomy, and appropriate systemic therapy, when indicated. The most prescribed dose was 40 GyE to the whole breast/chest wall and 48 GyE by simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor bed and 37.5 GyE to appropriate nodal volumes, delivered in 15 fractions. RESULTS Adequate coverage was achieved for clinical target volume (breast/chest wall), i.e., CTV40, and regional nodes, with 99% of the targets receiving 95% of the prescribed dose (V95% > 99%). The mean heart dose was 0.78 GyE and 0.87 GyE for all and left breast cancer patients, respectively. The mean left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose, LAD D0.02cc, and left ventricle dose were 2.76, 6.46, and 0.2 GyE, respectively. Mean ipsilateral lung dose, V20Gy, V5Gy, and contralateral breast dose (Dmean) were 6.87 GyE, 14.6%, 36.4%, and 0.38 GyE, respectively. CONCLUSION The dose to heart and cardiac substructures is lower with IMPT than published photon therapy data. Despite the limited access to proton therapy at present, given the higher cardiovascular risk and coronary artery disease prevalence in India, the cardiac sparing achieved using this technique merits consideration for wider adoption in breast cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sapna Nangia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Nagarjuna Burela
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - M P Noufal
- Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Kartikeswar Patro
- Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Manoj Gulabrao Wakde
- Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Dayanada S Sharma
- Department of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Valvular Heart Disease Associated With Radiation Therapy: A Contemporary Review. STRUCTURAL HEART 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.shj.2022.100104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/18/2023]
|
15
|
Hassan MZO, Awadalla M, Tan TC, Scherrer-Crosbie M, Bakar RB, Drobni ZD, Zarif A, Gilman HK, Supraja S, Nikolaidou S, Zhang L, Zlotoff DA, Hickey SB, Patel SA, Januzzi JL, Keane F, Passeri JJ, Neilan TG, MacDonald SM, Jimenez RB. Serial Measurement of Global Longitudinal Strain Among Women With Breast Cancer Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy: A Prospective Trial for 70 Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:398-406. [PMID: 36028065 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.08.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Revised: 08/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/11/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Conventional photon radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer is associated with a reduction in global longitudinal strain (GLS) and an increase in troponin, N-terminal pro hormone B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and incident heart failure. The cardiac radiation exposure with proton-RT is much reduced and thus may be associated with less cardiotoxicity. The objective was to test the effect of proton-RT on GLS, troponin, and NT-proBNP. METHODS AND MATERIALS We conducted a prospective, observational, single-center study of 70 women being treated with proton-RT for breast cancer. Serial measurements of GLS, high-sensitivity troponin I, and NT-proBNP were performed at prespecified intervals (before proton-RT, 4 weeks after completion of proton-RT, and again at 2 months after proton-RT). RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 46 ± 11 years, and the mean body mass index was 25.6 ± 5.2 kg/m2; 32% of patients had hypertension, and the mean radiation doses to the heart and the left ventricle (LV) were 0.44 Gy and 0.12 Gy, respectively. There was no change in left ventricular ejection fraction (65 ± 5 vs 66 ± 5 vs 64 ± 4%; P = .15), global GLS (-21.7 ± 2.7 vs -22.7 ± 2.3 vs -22.8 ± 2.1%; P = .24), or segmental GLS from before to after proton-RT. Similarly, there was no change in either high-sensitivity troponin or NT-proBNP with proton-RT. However, in a post hoc subset analysis, women with hypertension had a greater decrease in GLS after proton-RT compared with women without hypertension (-21.3 ± 3.5 vs -24.0 ± 2.4%; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS Proton-RT did not affect LV function and was not associated with an increase in biomarkers. These data support the potential cardiac benefits of proton-RT compared with conventional RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malek Z O Hassan
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardiology Department, Royal Papworth Hospital, Trumpington, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
| | - Magid Awadalla
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardio-Oncology Program, Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardiology Department, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
| | - Timothy C Tan
- Division of Cardiology, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, University of Western Sydney and School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Rula Bany Bakar
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Zsofia D Drobni
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Azmaeen Zarif
- Cardiology Department, Royal Papworth Hospital, Trumpington, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Hannah K Gilman
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sama Supraja
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sofia Nikolaidou
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lili Zhang
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardio-Oncology Program, Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel A Zlotoff
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Shea B Hickey
- Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sagar A Patel
- Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - James L Januzzi
- Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
| | - Florence Keane
- Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jonathon J Passeri
- Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
| | - Tomas G Neilan
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardio-Oncology Program, Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rachel B Jimenez
- Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Laughlin BS, Bhangoo RS, Niska JR, Thorpe CS, Girardo ME, Anderson JD, Kosiorek HE, McGee LA, Hartsell WF, Chang JH, Rossi CJ, Tsai HK, Choi IJ, Vargas CE. Proton therapy for isolated local regional recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy alone. Front Oncol 2022; 12:925078. [DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.925078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose/ObjectivesTo assess adverse events (AEs) and disease-specific outcomes after proton therapy for isolated local-regional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer after mastectomy without prior radiotherapy (RT).Materials/MethodsPatients were identified from a multi-institutional prospective registry and included if diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, initially underwent mastectomy without adjuvant RT, experienced an LRR, and subsequently underwent salvage treatment, including proton therapy. Follow-up and cancer outcomes were measured from the date of RT completion.ResultsNineteen patients were included. Seventeen patients were treated with proton therapy to the chest wall and comprehensive regional lymphatics (17/19, 90%). Maximum grade AE was grade 2 in 13 (69%) patients and grade 3 in 4 (21%) patients. All patients with grade 3 AE received > 60 GyE (p=0.04, Spearman correlation coefficient=0.5). At the last follow-up, 90% of patients were alive with no LRR or distant recurrence.ConclusionsFor breast cancer patients with isolated LRR after initial mastectomy without adjuvant RT, proton therapy is well-tolerated in the salvage setting with excellent loco-regional control. All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving > 60 GyE.
Collapse
|
17
|
Prasad Srivastava R, Jha B, Prasad Lamichhane H, Prasiko G. Modern Radiotherapy Techniques for Breast Cancer Treatment. Radiat Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.101700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
There are many radiotherapy techniques used to treat breast cancer. Each techniques have their own limitations. The treatment techniques are valid depending on the facilities available to the department. The patient could be treated any technique as the expert knowledge to the center. This chapter will explain about the techniques used in current practice of breast cancer treatment. It will be explained why one technique procedure is better than others. The dose prescription and protocol will be not discussed. It depends on the department policy and facilities. The chapter will be the practical purpose that readers can use straight.
Collapse
|
18
|
Garda AE, Hunzeker AE, Michel AK, Fattahi S, Shiraishi S, Remmes NB, Schultz HL, Harmsen WS, Shumway DA, Yan ES, Park SS, Mutter RW, Corbin KS. Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Bilateral Breast or Chest Wall and Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation for Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer: Initial Clinical Experience and Dosimetric Comparison. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100901. [PMID: 35647397 PMCID: PMC9133394 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) poses distinct challenges for radiation therapy planning. We report our proton therapy experience in treating patients with SBBC. We also provide a dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus photon therapy. Methods and Materials Patients with SBBC who received IMPT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the breast or chest wall and comprehensive regional lymph nodes, including axilla, supraclavicular fossa, and the internal mammary chain. Intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated with the goal that 90% of the CTV would recieve at least 90% of the prescription dose (D90>=90%). Comparisons between modalities were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Physician-reported acute toxic effects and photography were collected at baseline, end of treatment, and each follow-up visit. Results Between 2015 and 2018, 11 patients with SBBC were treated with IMPT. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The median CTV D90 was 99.9% for IMPT and 97.6% for VMAT (P = .001). The mean heart dose was 0.7 Gy versus 7.2 Gy (P = .001), the total lung mean dose was 7.8 Gy versus 17.3 Gy (P = .001), and the total lung volume recieving 20 Gy was 13.0% versus 27.4% (P = .001). The most common acute toxic effects were dermatitis (mostly grade 1-2 with 1 case of grade 3) and grade 1 to 2 fatigue. The most common toxic effects at the last-follow up (median, 32 months) were grade 1 skin hyperpigmentation, superficial fibrosis, and extremity lymphedema. No nondermatologic or nonfatigue adverse events of grade >1 were recorded. Conclusions Bilateral breast and/or chest wall and comprehensive nodal IMPT is technically feasible and associated with low rates of severe acute toxic effects. Treatment with IMPT offered improved target coverage and normal-tissue sparing compared with photon therapy. Long-term follow-up is ongoing to assess efficacy and toxic effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison E. Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Ann K. Michel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sayeh Fattahi
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Satomi Shiraishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - W. Scott Harmsen
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A. Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Elizabeth S. Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S. Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W. Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Oonsiri P, Nantavithya C, Lertbutsayanukul C, Sarsitthithum T, Vimolnoch M, Tawonwong T, Saksornchai K. Dosimetric evaluation of photons versus protons in postmastectomy planning for ultrahypofractionated breast radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:20. [PMID: 35093111 PMCID: PMC8799967 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-01992-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Ultrahypofractionation can shorten the irradiation period. This study is the first dosimetric investigation comparing ultrahypofractionation using volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT) techniques in postmastectomy treatment planning.
Materials and methods
Twenty postmastectomy patients (10-left and 10-right sided) were replanned with both VMAT and IMPT techniques. There were four scenarios: left chest wall, left chest wall including regional nodes, right chest wall, and right chest wall including regional nodes. The prescribed dose was 26 Gy(RBE) in 5 fractions. For VMAT, a 1-cm bolus was added for 2 in 5 fractions. For IMPT, robust optimization was performed on the CTV structure with a 3-mm setup uncertainty and a 3.5% range uncertainty. This study aimed to compare the dosimetric parameters of the PTV, ipsilateral lung, contralateral lung, heart, skin, esophageal, and thyroid doses.
Results
The PTV-D95 was kept above 24.7 Gy(RBE) in both VMAT and IMPT plans. The ipsilateral lung mean dose of the IMPT plans was comparable to that of the VMAT plans. In three of four scenarios, the V5 of the ipsilateral lung in IMPT plans was lower than in VMAT plans. The Dmean and V5 of heart dose were reduced by a factor of 4 in the IMPT plans of the left side. For the right side, the Dmean of the heart was less than 1 Gy(RBE) for IMPT, while the VMAT delivered approximately 3 Gy(RBE). The IMPT plans showed a significantly higher skin dose owing to the lack of a skin-sparing effect in the proton beam. The IMPT plans provided lower esophageal and thyroid mean dose.
Conclusion
Despite the higher skin dose with the proton plan, IMPT significantly reduced the dose to adjacent organs at risk, which might translate into the reduction of late toxicities when compared with the photon plan.
Collapse
|
20
|
Loap P, De Marzi L, Almeida CE, Barcellini A, Bradley J, de Santis MC, Dendale R, Jimenez R, Orlandi E, Kirova Y. Hadrontherapy techniques for breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2021; 169:103574. [PMID: 34958916 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Revised: 12/22/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy plays a key role in breast cancer treatment, and recent technical advances have been made to improve the therapeutic window by limiting the risk of radiation-induced toxicity or by increasing tumor control. Hadrontherapy is a form a radiotherapy relying on particle beams; compared with photon beams, particle beams have specific physical, radiobiological and immunological properties, which can be valuable in diverse clinical situations. To date, available hadrontherapy techniques for breast cancer irradiation include proton therapy, carbon ion radiation therapy, fast neutron therapy and boron neutron capture therapy. This review analyzes the current rationale and level of evidence for each hadrontherapy technique for breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Loap
- Proton Therapy Center, Institut Curie, Orsay, France.
| | | | - Carlos Eduardo Almeida
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | | | - Julie Bradley
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | | | - Remi Dendale
- Proton Therapy Center, Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| | - Rachel Jimenez
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Ester Orlandi
- National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | - Youlia Kirova
- Proton Therapy Center, Institut Curie, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Zhu M, Langen K, Nichols EM, Lin Y, Flampouri S, Godette KD, Dutta SW, McDonald MW, Patel SA. Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Treatment Planning for Postmastectomy Patients with Metallic Port Tissue Expanders. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 7:100825. [PMID: 34805622 PMCID: PMC8590033 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100825] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2021] [Revised: 09/10/2021] [Accepted: 09/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Proton beam therapy can significantly reduce cardiopulmonary radiation exposure compared with photon-based techniques in the postmastectomy setting for locally advanced breast cancer. For patients with metallic port tissue expanders, which are commonly placed in patients undergoing a staged breast reconstruction, dose uncertainties introduced by the high-density material pose challenges for proton therapy. In this report, we describe an intensity modulated proton therapy planning technique for port avoidance through a hybrid single-field optimization/multifield optimization approach. Methods and Materials In this planning technique, 3 beams are utilized. For each beam, no proton spot is placed within or distal to the metal port plus a 5 mm margin. Therefore, precise modeling of the metal port is not required, and various tissue expander manufacturers/models are eligible. The blocked area of 1 beam is dosimetrically covered by 1 or 2 of the remaining beams. Multifield optimization is used in the chest wall target region with blockage of any beam, while single-field optimization is used for remainder of chest wall superior/inferior to the port. Results Using this technique, clinical plans were created for 6 patients. Satisfactory plans were achieved in the 5 patients with port-to-posterior chest wall separations of 1.5 cm or greater, but not in the sixth patient with a 0.7 cm separation. Conclusions We described a planning technique and the results suggest that the metallic port-to-chest wall distance may be a key parameter for optimal plan design.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mingyao Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Katja Langen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Elizabeth M Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Yuting Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Karen D Godette
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Sunil W Dutta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mark W McDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Sagar A Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Choi JI, Khan AJ, Powell SN, McCormick B, Lozano AJ, Del Rosario G, Mamary J, Liu H, Fox P, Gillespie E, Braunstein LZ, Mah D, Cahlon O. Proton reirradiation for recurrent or new primary breast cancer in the setting of prior breast irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2021; 165:142-151. [PMID: 34688807 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Late local recurrences and second primary breast cancers are increasingly common. Proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) may allow safer delivery of a second definitive radiotherapy (RT) course. We analyzed outcomes of patients with recurrent or new primary breast cancer who underwent reRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS In an IRB-approved retrospective study, patient/tumor characteristics, treatment parameters, outcomes, and toxicities were collected for all consecutive patients with recurrent or new primary non-metastatic breast cancer previously treated with breast or chest wall RT who underwent PBT reRT. RESULTS Forty-six patients received reRT using uniform (70%) or pencil beam (30%) scanning PBT. Median first RT, reRT, and cumulative doses were 60 Gy (range 45-66 Gy), 50.4 Gy(RBE) (40-66.6 Gy(RBE)), and 110 Gy(RBE) (96.6-169.4 Gy(RBE)), respectively. Median follow-up was 21 months. There were no local or regional recurrences; 17% developed distant recurrence. Two-year DMFS and OS were 92.0% and 93.6%, respectively. Nine of 13 (69.2%) patients who underwent implant or flap reconstruction developed capsular contracture, 3 (23.1%) requiring surgical intervention. One (7.7%) patient developed grade 3 breast pain requiring mastectomy after breast conserving surgery. No acute or late grade 4-5 toxicities were seen. Increased body mass index (BMI) was protective of grade ≥ 2 acute toxicity (OR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.70-1.00). CONCLUSION In the largest series to date of PBT reRT for breast cancer recurrence or new primary after prior definitive breast or chest wall RT, excellent locoregional control and few high-grade toxicities were encountered. PBT reRT may provide a relatively safe and highly effective salvage option. Additional patients and follow-up are needed to correlate composite normal tissue doses with toxicities and assess long-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; New York Proton Center, New York, USA.
| | - Atif J Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Simon N Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Beryl McCormick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | | | | | | | - Haoyang Liu
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, USA
| | - Pamela Fox
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, USA
| | - Erin Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Lior Z Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Dennis Mah
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; New York Proton Center, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Taparra K, Fukui J, Killeen J, Sumida K, Loo LWM, Hernandez BY. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rates of Invasive Second Breast Cancer Among Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Hawai'i. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2128977. [PMID: 34668945 PMCID: PMC8529402 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28977] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 08/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Importance Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may develop a subsequent invasive second breast cancer (SBC). Understanding the association of racial and ethnic factors with the development of invasive SBC may help reduce overtreatment and undertreatment of women from minority groups. Objective To evaluate risk factors associated with developing invasive ipsilateral SBC (iiSBC) and invasive contralateral SBC (icSBC) among women with an initial diagnosis of DCIS who are from racial and ethnic minority populations. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study used deidentified data from the Hawai'i Tumor Registry of 6221 female Hawai'i residents aged 20 years or older who received a diagnosis of DCIS between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 2017. The 5 most populous ethnic groups were compared (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Native Hawaiian, and White). Data analysis was performed from 2020 to 2021. Exposures Patient demographic and clinical characteristics and the first course of treatment. Main Outcome and Measures The a priori study outcome was the development of invasive SBC. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with invasive SBC. Factors that were significant on unadjusted analyses were included in the adjusted models (ie, age, race and ethnicity, diagnosis year, DCIS histologic characteristics, laterality, hormone status, and treatment). Results The racial and ethnic distribution of patients with DCIS across the state's most populous groups were 2270 Japanese women (37%), 1411 White women (23%), 840 Filipino women (14%), 821 Native Hawaiian women (13%), and 491 Chinese women (8%). Women of other minority race and ethnicity collectively comprised 6% of cases (n = 388). A total of 6221 women (age range, 20 to ≥80 years) were included in the study; 4817 (77%) were 50 years of age or older, 4452 (72%) received a diagnosis between 2000 and 2017, 2581 (42%) had well or moderately differentiated histologic characteristics, 2383 (38%) had noninfiltrating intraductal DCIS, and 2011 (32%) were treated with mastectomy only. Of these 6221 women, 444 (7%) developed invasive SBC; 190 developed iiSBC (median time to SBC diagnosis, 7.8 years [range, 0.5-30 years]) and 254 developed icSBC (median time to SBC diagnosis, 5.9 years [range, 0.5-28.8 years]). On adjusted analysis, women who developed iiSBC were more likely to be younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08-2.06), Native Hawaiian (aOR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.01-5.35), Filipino (aOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.11-3.42), Japanese (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.48), and untreated (aOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.80). Compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone, there was a decreased likelihood of iiSBC among women receiving BCS and radiotherapy (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.75), BCS and systemic treatment with or without radiotherapy (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.69), mastectomy only (aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.39), and mastectomy and systemic treatment (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.96). Women who developed an icSBC were more likely to be Native Hawaiian (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.10-2.61) or Filipino (aOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63). Risk of both iiSBC and icSBC decreased in the later years of diagnosis (2000-2017) compared with the earlier years (1973-1999). Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that Native Hawaiian and Filipino women who initially received a diagnosis of DCIS were more likely to subsequently develop both iiSBC and icSBC. Japanese women and younger women were more likely to develop iiSBC. Subpopulation disaggregation may help guide clinical treatment and screening decisions for at-risk subpopulations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kekoa Taparra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California
| | - Jami Fukui
- University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu
| | - Jeffrey Killeen
- Department of Pathology, Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi
| | - Kenneth Sumida
- Department of Medicine, University of Hawaiʻi John A. Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu
| | - Lenora W. M. Loo
- University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu
| | - Brenda Y. Hernandez
- University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Mutter RW, Choi JI, Jimenez RB, Kirova YM, Fagundes M, Haffty BG, Amos RA, Bradley JA, Chen PY, Ding X, Carr AM, Taylor LM, Pankuch M, Vega RBM, Ho AY, Nyström PW, McGee LA, Urbanic JJ, Cahlon O, Maduro JH, MacDonald SM. Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:337-359. [PMID: 34048815 PMCID: PMC8416711 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.05.110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Recent years have seen improvements in breast cancer survival and a greater appreciation of potential long-term morbidity associated with the dose and volume of irradiated organs. Proton therapy reduces the dose to nontarget structures while optimizing target coverage. However, there remain additional financial costs associated with proton therapy, despite reductions over time, and studies have yet to demonstrate that protons improve upon the treatment outcomes achieved with photon radiation therapy. There remains considerable heterogeneity in proton patient selection and techniques, and the rapid technological advances in the field have the potential to affect evidence evaluation, given the long latency period for breast cancer radiation therapy recurrence and late effects. In this consensus statement, we assess the data available to the radiation oncology community of proton therapy for breast cancer, provide expert consensus recommendations on indications and technique, and highlight ongoing trials' cost-effectiveness analyses and key areas for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Rachel B Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Youlia M Kirova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Marcio Fagundes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Bruce G Haffty
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Richard A Amos
- Proton and Advanced Radiotherapy Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Peter Y Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Antoinette M Carr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Leslie M Taylor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Medicine Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois
| | | | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Petra Witt Nyström
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden and the Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - James J Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, UC San Diego Health, Encinitas, California
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John H Maduro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kang Y, Shen J, Bues M, Hu Y, Liu W, Ding X. Technical Note: Clinical modeling and validation of breast tissue expander metallic ports in a commercial treatment planning system for proton therapy. Med Phys 2021; 48:7512-7525. [PMID: 34519357 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2021] [Revised: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 09/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To validate breast tissue expander metallic port (MP) models in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments for breast cancer patients with breast tissue expanders. METHODS AND MATERIALS Three types of MPs taken out of a Mentor CPX4, a Natrelle 133, and a PMT Integra breast tissue expanders and a 650 cc saline filled Mentor CPX4 expander were placed on top of acrylic slabs, and scanned using a Siemens Somatom Definition AS Open RT CT scanner. Structure templates for each of the MPs were designed within Eclipse TPS. The CT numbers for the metallic parts were overridden to reflect measured or calculated relative proton stopping powers (RPSPs). Mock targets were contoured in acrylic to represent postmastectomy chest-wall radiation therapy (PMRT) targets. Plans with different beam incident angles were optimized using the Eclipse TPS to deliver uniform prescription dose to the target using Hitachi Probeat-V PBS beams. Eclipse calculated doses and an in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code calculated doses were compared to the measured Gafchromic EBT3 film doses in acrylic. RESULTS TPS/MC and film dose comparison results showed that (1) 3%/2 mm/10% threshold Gamma pass rates were better than 90.8% in the acrylic target region for all plans; (2) comparing TPS and film doses for the individual beam plans in the MP dose shadow areas, the area with dose difference above 5% ([ΔA] 5%) ranged from 1.1 to 5.0 cm2 , and the maximum dose difference ([ΔD] 0.01 cm2 ) ranged from 12.5% to 25.0%; (3) comparing MC and film doses for the individual beam plans in the MP dose shadow areas, the (ΔA) 5% varied from 1.1 to 2.9 cm2 and (ΔD) 0.01 cm2 varied from 8.5% to 24.2%; (4) for a plan composed of three individual beams treating through the Mentor CPX4 expander, the TPS (ΔA) 5% was less than 0.13 cm2 , and the (ΔD) 0.01 cm2 was less than 6% in the MP dose shadow areas. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible to treat patients with tissue expanders using multiple PBS beams using a structure template with CT number overridden to represent the measured/calculated RPSP for MPs for PBS treatment planning. MC dose was more accurate than analytical dose in the areas with high dose gradient caused by the density heterogeneity of the breast tissue expander MPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yixiu Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Yanle Hu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Xiaoning Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Prasanna PG, Rawojc K, Guha C, Buchsbaum JC, Miszczyk JU, Coleman CN. Normal Tissue Injury Induced by Photon and Proton Therapies: Gaps and Opportunities. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:1325-1340. [PMID: 33640423 PMCID: PMC8496269 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.02.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Despite technological advances in radiation therapy (RT) and cancer treatment, patients still experience adverse effects. Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a valuable RT modality that can improve treatment outcomes. Normal tissue injury is an important determinant of the outcome; therefore, for this review, we analyzed 2 databases: (1) clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and (2) the literature on PT in PubMed, which shows a steady increase in the number of publications. Most studies in PT registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with results available are nonrandomized early phase studies with a relatively small number of patients enrolled. From the larger database of nonrandomized trials, we listed adverse events in specific organs/sites among patients with cancer who are treated with photons and protons to identify critical issues. The present data demonstrate dosimetric advantages of PT with favorable toxicity profiles and form the basis for comparative randomized prospective trials. A comparative analysis of 3 recently completed randomized trials for normal tissue toxicities suggests that for early stage non-small cell lung cancer, no meaningful comparison could be made between stereotactic body RT and stereotactic body PT due to low accrual (NCT01511081). In addition, for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, a comparison of intensity modulated RTwith passive scattering PT (now largely replaced by spot-scanned intensity modulated PT), PT did not provide any benefit in normal tissue toxicity or locoregional failure over photon therapy. Finally, for locally advanced esophageal cancer, proton beam therapy provided a lower total toxicity burden but did not improve progression-free survival and quality of life (NCT01512589). The purpose of this review is to inform the limitations of current trials looking at protons and photons, considering that advances in technology, physics, and biology are a continuum, and to advocate for future trials geared toward accurate precision RT that need to be viewed as an iterative process in a defined path toward delivering optimal radiation treatment. A foundational understanding of the radiobiologic differences between protons and photons in tumor and normal tissue responses is fundamental to, and necessary for, determining the suitability of a given type of biologically optimized RT to a patient or cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pataje G Prasanna
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
| | - Kamila Rawojc
- The University Hospital in Krakow, Department of Endocrinology, Nuclear Medicine Unit, Krakow, Poland
| | - Chandan Guha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
| | - Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Justyna U Miszczyk
- Department of Experimental Physics of Complex Systems, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - C Norman Coleman
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
DeCesaris CM, Mossahebi S, Jatczak J, Rao AD, Zhu M, Mishra MV, Nichols E. Outcomes of and treatment planning considerations for a hybrid technique delivering proton pencil-beam scanning radiation to women with metal-containing tissue expanders undergoing post-mastectomy radiation. Radiother Oncol 2021; 164:289-298. [PMID: 34280402 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2021] [Revised: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Following mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction often involves the use of temporary tissue expanders (TEs). TEs contain metallic ports (MPs), which complicate proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) planning. A technique was implemented for delivering PBS post-mastectomy radiation (PMRT) to patients with TEs and MPs. METHODS A protocol utilizing a hybrid single- and multi-field optimization (SFO, MFO) technique was developed. Plans were robustly optimized using a Monte Carlo algorithm. A CTV_eval structure including chest wall (CW) and regional nodal (RNI) targets and excluding the TE was evaluated. Organ at risk (OAR) dosimetry and acute toxicities were analyzed. RESULTS Twenty-nine women were treated with this technique. A 2-field SFO technique was used superior and inferior to the MP, with a 3 or 4-field MFO technique used at the level of the MP. Virtual blocks were utilized so that beams did not travel through the MP. A port-to-CW distance of 1 cm was required. Patients underwent daily image-guidance to ensure the port remained within a 0.5 cm internal planning volume (ITV). Median RT dose to CTV_eval was 50.4 Gy (45.0-50.4). Median 95% CTV_eval coverage was 99.5% (95-100). Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) readings were available for 8 patients and correlated to the dose measurements in the treatment planning system (TPS); median OSLD ratio was 0.99 (range, 0.93-1.02). CONCLUSIONS Delivering PMRT with PBS for women with metal-containing TEs using a hybrid SFO/MFO technique is feasible, reproducible, and achieves excellent dose distributions. Specialized planning and image-guidance techniques are required to safely utilize this treatment in the clinic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina M DeCesaris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, United States.
| | - Sina Mossahebi
- Division of Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
| | - Jenna Jatczak
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, United States
| | - Avani D Rao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, United States
| | - Mingyao Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
| | - Mark V Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
| | - Elizabeth Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Dahn HM, Boersma LJ, de Ruysscher D, Meattini I, Offersen BV, Pignol JP, Aristei C, Belkacemi Y, Benjamin D, Bese N, Coles CE, Franco P, Ho A, Hol S, Jagsi R, Kirby AM, Marrazzo L, Marta GN, Moran MS, Nichol AM, Nissen HD, Strnad V, Zissiadis YE, Poortmans P, Kaidar-Person O. The use of bolus in postmastectomy radiation therapy for breast cancer: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2021; 163:103391. [PMID: 34102286 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces locoregional recurrence (LRR) and breast cancer mortality for selected patients. Bolus overcomes the skin-sparing effect of external-beam radiotherapy, ensuring adequate dose to superficial regions at risk of local recurrence (LR). This systematic review summarizes the current evidence regarding the impact of bolus on LR and acute toxicity in the setting of PMRT. RESULTS 27 studies were included. The use of bolus led to higher rates of acute grade 3 radiation dermatitis (pooled rates of 9.6% with bolus vs. 1.2% without). Pooled crude LR rates from thirteen studies (n = 3756) were similar with (3.5%) and without (3.6%) bolus. CONCLUSIONS Bolus may be indicated in cases with a high risk of LR in the skin, but seems not to be necessary for all patients. Further work is needed to define the role of bolus in PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah M Dahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | | | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
| | - Yazid Belkacemi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Henri Mondor Breast Center, University of Paris-Est (UPEC), Creteil, France; INSERM Unit 955, Team 21. IMRB, Creteil, France.
| | - Dori Benjamin
- Department of Physics, Radiation Oncology, Sheba medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
| | - Nuran Bese
- Department of Clinical Senology, Research Institute of Senology Acibadem, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital "Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy.
| | - Alice Ho
- Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Sandra Hol
- Instituut Verbeeten, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
| | - Anna M Kirby
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
| | - Livia Marrazzo
- Medical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
| | - Gustavo N Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology - Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.
| | | | - Alan M Nichol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| | | | - Vratislav Strnad
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
| | | | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Netwerk and University of Antwerp, Wilrijk Antwerp, Belgium.
| | - Orit Kaidar-Person
- Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology or GROW (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Musielak M, Suchorska WM, Fundowicz M, Milecki P, Malicki J. Future Perspectives of Proton Therapy in Minimizing the Toxicity of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11050410. [PMID: 34068305 PMCID: PMC8153289 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11050410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2021] [Revised: 05/10/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The toxicity of radiotherapy is a key issue when analyzing the eligibility criteria for patients with breast cancer. In order to obtain better results, proton therapy is proposed because of the more favorable distribution of the dose in the patient’s body compared with photon radiotherapy. Scientific groups have conducted extensive research into the improved efficacy and lower toxicity of proton therapy for breast cancer. Unfortunately, there is no complete insight into the potential reasons and prospects for avoiding undesirable results. Cardiotoxicity is considered challenging; however, researchers have not presented any realistic prospects for preventing them. We compared the clinical evidence collected over the last 20 years, providing the rationale for the consideration of proton therapy as an effective solution to reduce cardiotoxicity. We analyzed the parameters of the dose distribution (mean dose, Dmax, V5, and V20) in organs at risk, such as the heart, blood vessels, and lungs, using the following two irradiation techniques: whole breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation. Moreover, we presented the possible causes of side effects, taking into account biological and technical issues. Finally, we collected potential improvements in higher quality predictions of toxic cardiac effects, like biomarkers, and model-based approaches to give the full background of this complex issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marika Musielak
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Radiobiology Laboratory, Department of Medical Physics, 61-866 Poznan, Poland
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +48-505372290
| | - Wiktoria M. Suchorska
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Radiobiology Laboratory, Department of Medical Physics, 61-866 Poznan, Poland
| | | | - Piotr Milecki
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Radiotherapy Ward I, 61-866 Poznan, Poland;
| | - Julian Malicki
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Medical Physics Department, 61-866 Poznan, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Luo W, Ali YF, Liu C, Wang Y, Liu C, Jin X, Zhou G, Liu NA. Particle Therapy for Breast Cancer: Benefits and Challenges. Front Oncol 2021; 11:662826. [PMID: 34026640 PMCID: PMC8131859 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.662826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 04/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hadron therapy with protons and carbon ions is widely attracting interest as a potential competitor of conventional photon radiotherapy. Exquisite dose distribution of charged particles allows for a higher local control of the tumor and lower probability of damage to nearby healthy tissues. Heavy ions have presumed biological advantages rising from their high-linear energy transfer (LET) characteristics, including greater cell-killing effectiveness and reduced heterogeneity dependence of radiation response. Although these advantages are clear and supported by data, only 18.0% of proton and carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) facilities in Europe are treating breast cancers. This review summarizes the physical and radiobiological properties of charged particles, clinical use of particle beam for breast cancer, and suggested approaches to overcome technical and financial challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wanrong Luo
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Yasser F. Ali
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
- Biophysics Lab, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Chong Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Yuchen Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Caorui Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Xiaoni Jin
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Guangming Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Ning-Ang Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiological Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Cunningham L, Penfold S, Giles E, Le H, Short M. Impact of Breast Size on Dosimetric Indices in Proton Versus X-ray Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11040282. [PMID: 33917818 PMCID: PMC8068250 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11040282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy is a technique used to manage early stage left-sided breast cancer. This study compared dosimetric indices of patient-specific X-ray versus proton therapy DIBH plans to explore differences in target coverage, radiation doses to organs at risk, and the impact of breast size. Radiotherapy plans of sixteen breast cancer patients previously treated with DIBH radiotherapy were re-planned with hybrid inverse-planned intensity modulated X-ray radiotherapy (h-IMRT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). The total prescribed dose was 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions for all cases. Comparisons between the clinical, h-IMRT, and IMPT evaluated doses to target volumes, organs at risk, and correlations between doses and breast size. Although no differences were observed in target volume coverage between techniques, the h-IMRT and IMPT were able to produce more even dose distributions and IMPT delivered significantly less dose to all organs at risk than both X-ray techniques. A moderate negative correlation was observed between breast size and dose to the target in X-ray techniques, but not IMPT. Both h-IMRT and IMPT produced plans with more homogeneous dose distribution than forward-planned IMRT and IMPT achieved significantly lower doses to organs at risk compared to X-ray techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Cunningham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide 5000, Australia; (L.C.); (S.P.); (H.L.)
| | - Scott Penfold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide 5000, Australia; (L.C.); (S.P.); (H.L.)
| | - Eileen Giles
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, Australia;
| | - Hien Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide 5000, Australia; (L.C.); (S.P.); (H.L.)
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, Australia;
| | - Michala Short
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, Australia;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +61-8-83022089
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Aristei C, Perrucci E, Alì E, Marazzi F, Masiello V, Saldi S, Ingrosso G. Personalization in Modern Radiation Oncology: Methods, Results and Pitfalls. Personalized Interventions and Breast Cancer. Front Oncol 2021; 11:616042. [PMID: 33816246 PMCID: PMC8012886 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.616042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2020] [Accepted: 02/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer, the most frequent malignancy in women worldwide, is a heterogeneous group of diseases, characterized by distinct molecular aberrations. In precision medicine, radiation oncology for breast cancer aims at tailoring treatment according to tumor biology and each patient’s clinical features and genetics. Although systemic therapies are personalized according to molecular sub-type [i.e. endocrine therapy for receptor-positive disease and anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy for HER2-positive disease] and multi-gene assays, personalized radiation therapy has yet to be adopted in the clinical setting. Currently, attempts are being made to identify prognostic and/or predictive factors, biomarkers, signatures that could lead to personalized treatment in order to select appropriate patients who might, or might not, benefit from radiation therapy or whose radiation therapy might be escalated or de-escalated in dosages and volumes. This overview focuses on what has been achieved to date in personalized post-operative radiation therapy and individual patient radiosensitivity assessments by means of tumor sub-types and genetics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | | | - Emanuele Alì
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Fabio Marazzi
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Valeria Masiello
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Simonetta Saldi
- Radiation Oncology Section, Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Gianluca Ingrosso
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Stick LB, Lorenzen EL, Yates ES, Anandadas C, Andersen K, Aristei C, Byrne O, Hol S, Jensen I, Kirby AM, Kirova YM, Marrazzo L, Matías-Pérez A, Nielsen MMB, Nissen HD, Oliveros S, Verhoeven K, Vikström J, Offersen BV. Selection criteria for early breast cancer patients in the DBCG proton trial - The randomised phase III trial strategy. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021; 27:126-131. [PMID: 33659716 PMCID: PMC7892790 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2020] [Revised: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2021] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Adjuvant radiotherapy of internal mammary nodes (IMN) improves survival in high-risk early breast cancer patients but inevitably leads to more dose to heart and lung. Target coverage is often compromised to meet heart/lung dose constraints. We estimate heart and lung dose when target coverage is not compromised in consecutive patients. These estimates are used to guide the choice of selection criteria for the randomised Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) Proton Trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS 179 breast cancer patients already treated with loco-regional IMN radiotherapy from 18 European departments were included. If the clinically delivered treatment plan did not comply with defined target coverage requirements, the plan was modified retrospectively until sufficient coverage was reached. The choice of selection criteria was based on the estimated number of eligible patients for different heart and lung dose thresholds in combination with proton therapy capacity limitations and dose-response relationships for heart and lung. RESULTS Median mean heart dose was 3.0 Gy (range, 1.1-8.2 Gy) for left-sided and 1.4 Gy (0.4-11.5 Gy) for right-sided treatment plans. Median V17Gy/V20Gy (hypofractionated/normofractionated plans) for ipsilateral lung was 31% (9-57%). The DBCG Radiotherapy Committee chose mean heart dose ≥ 4 Gy and/or lung V17Gy/V20Gy ≥ 37% as thresholds for inclusion in the randomised trial. Using these thresholds, we estimate that 22% of patients requiring loco-regional IMN radiotherapy will be eligible for the trial. CONCLUSION The patient selection criteria for the DBCG Proton Trial are mean heart dose ≥ 4 Gy and/or lung V17Gy/V20Gy ≥ 37%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Line Bjerregaard Stick
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Niels Bohr Institute, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | | | - Carmel Anandadas
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Karen Andersen
- Department of Radiotherapy, Herlev & Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Cynthia Aristei
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia & Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Orla Byrne
- Department of Medical Physics, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sandra Hol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute Verbeeten, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Ingelise Jensen
- Department of Medical Physics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Anna M. Kirby
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Livia Marrazzo
- Department of Medical Physics, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Sileida Oliveros
- Department of Oncology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Karolien Verhoeven
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Johan Vikström
- Department of Radiotherapy, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
| | - Birgitte Vrou Offersen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology & Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Liu C, Zheng D, Bradley JA, Mailhot Vega RB, Zhang Y, Indelicato DJ, Mendenhall N, Liang X. Incorporation of the LETd-weighted biological dose in the evaluation of breast intensity-modulated proton therapy plans. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:252-259. [PMID: 33063569 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1834141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the LETd-weighted biological dose to OARs in proton therapy for breast cancer and to study the relationship of the LETd-weighted biological dose relative to the standard dose (RBE = 1.1) and thereby to provide estimations of the biological dose uncertainties with the standard dose calculations (RBE = 1.1) commonly used in clinical practice. METHOD This study included 20 patients who received IMPT treatment to the whole breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes. The LETd distributions were calculated along with the physical dose using an open-source Monte Carlo simulation package, MCsquare. Using the McMahon linear model, the LETd-weighted biological dose was computed from the physical dose and LETd. OAR doses were compared between the Dose (RBE = 1.1) and the LETd-weighted biological dose, on brachial plexus, rib, heart, esophagus, and Ipsilateral lung. RESULTS On average, the LETd-weighted biological dose compared to the Dose (RBE = 1.1) was higher by 8% for the brachial plexus D0.1 cc, 13% for the ribs D0.5 cc, 24% for mean heart dose, and 10% for the esophagus D0.1 cc, respectively. The LETd-weighted doses to the Ipsilateral lung V5, V10, and V20 were comparable to the Dose (RBE = 1.1). No statistically significant difference in biological dose enhancement to OARs was observed between the intact breast group and the CW group, with the exception of the ribs: the CW group experienced slightly greater biological dose enhancement (13% vs. 12%, p = 0.04) to the ribs than the intact breast group. CONCLUSION Enhanced biological dose was observed compared to standard dose with assumed RBE of 1.1 for the heart, ribs, esophagus, and brachial plexus in breast/CW and regional nodal IMPT plans. Variable RBE models should be considered in the evaluation of the IMPT breast plans, especially for OARs located near the end of range of a proton beam. Clinical outcome studies are needed to validate model predictions for clinical toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunbo Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
- School of Physical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
| | - Dandan Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Julie A. Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Raymond B. Mailhot Vega
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Yawei Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Daniel J. Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Assessing the Need for Adjusted Organ-at-Risk Planning Goals for Patients Undergoing Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer with Proton Radiation. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 11:108-118. [PMID: 33109494 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2020] [Revised: 08/25/2020] [Accepted: 09/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Locally advanced breast cancer requires surgical management via lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without systemic therapy followed by chest wall or breast (CW) and comprehensive nodal irradiation (CNI). Radiation (RT) dose constraints for the heart and ipsilateral lung have been developed based on photon RT. Proton therapy (PBT) can deliver significantly lower doses of RT to these organs-at-risk (OARs) and may warrant adjustments to OAR planning goals. METHODS AND MATERIALS The RT plans of consecutive patients undergoing adjuvant CW-CNI RT with PBT within a single center were reviewed. A inital treatment volume, comprised of CW/intact breast + CNI (CTV_init) structure, including the CW and CNI but excluding any boost plans was analyzed. Frequency distributions were generated based on doses received by the heart, lungs, and esophagus for validated dosimetric parameters. Frequency distributions were generated and then stratified by laterality and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. The 75th, 85th, and 95th percentiles for each dosimetric parameter were calculated, overall and by laterality. The 75th percentile (Q3), was used as a suggested primary goal, and the 95th percentile was used as a suggested secondary goal. RESULTS One hundred and seventy-two plans were analyzed. Forty-nine plans were right-sided, 107 were left-sided, and 16 were bilateral. The overall Q3 of the mean and V25 of the heart were 1.5 Gy and 1.7%, respectively. The mean and V25 to the heart differed significantly by laterality. Pulmonary values were similar to current recommendations. For all lateralites, the median volume of the esophagus receiving 70% prescription dose was ≤1 cm3. CONCLUSIONS We present the first dosimetric study providing complete OAR dose-volume histograms data for patients undergoing adjuvant pencil-beam scanning-PBT for locally advanced breast cancer, with detailed information on central tendencies, ranges and distributions of data. We have provided suggested planning goals and metrics for the lungs, heart, and esophagus; the latter 2 differing significantly from current Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) constraints and classical photon goals.
Collapse
|
36
|
Chang S, Liu G, Zhao L, Dilworth JT, Zheng W, Jawad S, Yan D, Chen P, Stevens C, Kabolizadeh P, Li X, Ding X. Feasibility study: spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:232. [PMID: 33028378 PMCID: PMC7542109 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01676-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 09/24/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study investigated the feasibility and potential clinical benefit of utilizing a new proton treatment technique: Spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) to further reduce radiation dose to healthy tissue and mitigate the probability of normal tissue complications compared to conventional intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS Eight patients diagnosed with left-sided breast cancer and treated with breast-preserving surgery followed by whole breast irradiation without regional nodal irradiation were included in this retrospective planning. Two proton treatment plans were generated for each patient: vertical intensity-modulated proton therapy used for clinical treatment (vIMPT, gantry angle 10°-30°) and SPArc for comparison purpose. Both SPArc and vIMPT plans were optimized using the robust optimization of ± 3.5% range and 5 mm setup uncertainties. Root-mean-square deviation dose (RMSD) volume histograms were used for plan robustness evaluation. All dosimetric results were evaluated based on dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the interplay effect was evaluated based on the accumulation of single-fraction 4D dynamic dose on CT50. The treatment beam delivery time was simulated based on a gantry rotation with energy-layer-switching-time (ELST) from 0.2 to 5 s. RESULTS The average D1 to the heart and LAD were reduced to 53.63 cGy and 82.25 cGy compared with vIMPT 110.38 cGy (p = 0.001) and 170.38 cGy (p = 0.001), respectively. The average V5Gy and V20Gy of ipsilateral lung was reduced to 16.77% and 3.07% compared to vIMPT 25.56% (p = 0.001) and 4.68% (p = 0.003). Skin3mm mean and maximum dose were reduced to 3999.38 cGy and 4395.63 cGy compared to vIMPT 4104.25 cGy (p = 0.039) and 4411.63 cGy (p = 0.043), respectively. A significant relative risk reduction (RNTCP = NTCPSPArc/NTCPvIMPT) for organs at risk (OARs) was obtained with SPArc ranging from 0.61 to 0.86 depending on the clinical endpoint. The RMSD volume histogram (RVH) analysis shows SPArc provided better plan robustness in OARs sparing, including the heart, LAD, ipsilateral lung, and skin. The average estimated treatment beam delivery times were comparable to vIMPT plans when the ELST is about 0.5 s. CONCLUSION SPArc technique can further reduce dose delivered to OARs and the probability of normal tissue complications in patients treated for left-sided WBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheng Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Renmin Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei Province, China.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Gang Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA.,Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong, University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430023, China.,School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, Hubei, China
| | - Lewei Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Joshua T Dilworth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Weili Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Saada Jawad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Di Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Peter Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Craig Stevens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Peyman Kabolizadeh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Xiaoqiang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Ho AY, Wright JL, Blitzblau RC, Mutter RW, Duda DG, Norton L, Bardia A, Spring L, Isakoff SJ, Chen JH, Grassberger C, Bellon JR, Beriwal S, Khan AJ, Speers C, Dunn SA, Thompson A, Santa-Maria CA, Krop IE, Mittendorf E, King TA, Gupta GP. Optimizing Radiation Therapy to Boost Systemic Immune Responses in Breast Cancer: A Critical Review for Breast Radiation Oncologists. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:227-241. [PMID: 32417409 PMCID: PMC7646202 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Revised: 04/24/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Immunotherapy using immune checkpoint blockade has revolutionized the treatment of many types of cancer. Radiation therapy (RT)-particularly when delivered at high doses using newer techniques-may be capable of generating systemic antitumor effects when combined with immunotherapy in breast cancer. These systemic effects might be due to the local immune-priming effects of RT resulting in the expansion and circulation of effector immune cells to distant sites. Although this concept merits further exploration, several challenges need to be overcome. One is an understanding of how the heterogeneity of breast cancers may relate to tumor immunogenicity. Another concerns the need to develop knowledge and expertise in delivery, sequencing, and timing of RT with immunotherapy. Clinical trials addressing these issues are under way. We here review and discuss the particular opportunities and issues regarding this topic, including the design of informative clinical and translational studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - Jean L Wright
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Cancer Center, Brooklandville, Maryland
| | - Rachel C Blitzblau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dan G Duda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Larry Norton
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Aditya Bardia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Laura Spring
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Steven J Isakoff
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jonathan H Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Clemens Grassberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jennifer R Bellon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sushil Beriwal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania
| | - Atif J Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Corey Speers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Samantha A Dunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Alastair Thompson
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine Medical Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Cesar A Santa-Maria
- Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ian E Krop
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Elizabeth Mittendorf
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Tari A King
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Gaorav P Gupta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Ning MS, Palmer MB, Shah AK, Chambers LC, Garlock LB, Melson BB, Frank SJ. Three-Year Results of a Prospective Statewide Insurance Coverage Pilot for Proton Therapy: Stakeholder Collaboration Improves Patient Access to Care. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 16:e966-e976. [PMID: 32302271 PMCID: PMC8462618 DOI: 10.1200/jop.19.00437] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed, given its potential to improve outcomes; however, prior authorization remains a barrier to access and is associated with frequent denials and treatment delays. We sought to determine whether appropriate access to proton therapy could ensure timely care without overuse or increased costs. METHODS Our large academic cancer center collaborated with a statewide self-funded employer (n = 186,000 enrollees) on an insurance coverage pilot, incorporating a value-based analysis and ensuring preauthorization for appropriate indications. Coverage was ensured for prospective trials and five evidence-supported anatomic sites. Enrollment initiated in 2016 and continued for 3 years. Primary end points were use, authorization time, and cost of care, with case-matched comparison of total charges at 1 month pretreatment through 6 months posttreatment. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were approved over 3 years, with only 22 actually receiving proton therapy, versus a predicted use by 120 patients (P < .01). Median follow-up was 20.1 months, and average authorization time decreased from 17 days to < 1 day (P < .01), significantly enhancing patient access. During this time, 25 patients who met pilot eligibility were instead treated with photons; and 17 patients with > 6 months of follow-up were case matched by treatment site to 17 patients receiving proton therapy, with no significant differences in sex, age, performance status, stage, histology, indication, prescribed fractions, or chemotherapy. Total medical costs (including radiation therapy [RT] and non-RT charges) for patients treated with PBT were lower than expected (a cost increase initially was expected), with no significant difference in total average charges (P = .82), in the context of overall ancillary care use. CONCLUSION This coverage pilot demonstrated that appropriate access to proton therapy does not necessitate overuse or significantly increase comprehensive medical costs. Objective evidence-based coverage polices ensure appropriate patient selection. Stakeholder collaboration can streamline patient access while reducing administrative burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew S. Ning
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Laura C. Chambers
- Office of Employee Benefits, The University of Texas System, Austin, TX
| | - Laura B. Garlock
- Office of Employee Benefits, The University of Texas System, Austin, TX
| | - Benjamin B. Melson
- Department of Financial Planning and Analysis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Steven J. Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
- Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Liu C, Zheng D, Bradley JA, Vega RBM, Li Z, Mendenhall NP, Liang X. Patient-specific quality assurance and plan dose errors on breast intensity-modulated proton therapy. Phys Med 2020; 77:84-91. [PMID: 32799050 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2020] [Revised: 06/26/2020] [Accepted: 08/05/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate, in proton therapy, whether the Gamma passing rate (GPR) is related to the patient dose error and whether MU scaling can improve dose accuracy. METHODS Among 20 consecutively treated breast patients selected for analysis, two IMPT plans were retrospectively generated: (1) the pencil-beam (PB) plan and (2) the Monte Carlo (MC) plan. Patient-specific QA was performed. A 3%/3-mm Gamma analysis was conducted to compare the TPS-calculated PB algorithm dose distribution with the measured 2D dose. Dose errors were compared between the plans that passed the Gamma testing and those that failed. The MU was then scaled to obtain a better GPR. MU-scaled PB plan dose errors were compared to the original PB plan. RESULTS Of the 20 PB plans, 8 were passed Gamma testing (G_pass_group) and 12 failed (G_fail_group). Surprisingly, the G_pass_group had a greater dose error than the G_fail_group. The median (range) of the PTV DVH RMSE and PTV ΔDmean were 1.36 (1.00-1.91) Gy vs 1.18 (1.02-1.80) Gy and 1.23 (0.92-1.71) Gy vs 1.10 (0.87-1.49) Gy for the G_pass_group and the G_fail_group, respectively. MU scaling reduced overall dose error. However, for PTV D99 and D95, MU scaling worsened some cases. CONCLUSION For breast IMPT, the PB plans that passed the Gamma testing did not show smaller dose errors compared to the plans that failed. For individual plans, the MU scaling technique leads to overall smaller dose errors. However, we do not suggest use of the MU scaling technique to replace the MC plans when the MC algorithm is available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunbo Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA; School of Physical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
| | - Dandan Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Raymond B Mailhot Vega
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zuofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Arms positioning in post-mastectomy proton radiation: Feasibility and development of a new arms down contouring atlas. PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2020; 14:6-11. [PMID: 33458307 PMCID: PMC7807669 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2020] [Revised: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Background and purpose Breast cancer patients receiving radiation are traditionally positioned with both arms up, but this may not be feasible or comfortable for all patients. We evaluated the treatment planning and positioning reproducibility differences between the arms up and arms down positions for patients receiving post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS). Materials and methods Ten PMRT patients who were scheduled to receive PBS underwent CT-based treatment planning in both an arms down and a standard arms up position. An arms down contouring atlas was developed for consistency in treatment planning. Treatment plans were performed on both scans. A Wilcoxon test was applied to compare arms up and arms down metrics across patients. Five patients received treatment in the arms-down position at our institution while others were treated with the arms up. Residual set-up errors were recorded for each patient's treatment fractions and compared between positions. Results Target structure coverage remained consistent between the arms up and arms down positions. In regard to the OAR, the heart mean and maximum doses were statistically significantly lower in the arms up position versus the arms down position, however, the absolute differences were modest. Patients demonstrated similar setup errors, less than 0.5 mm differences, in all directions. Conclusions PBS for PMRT in the arms down position appeared stable and reproducible compared to the traditional arms up positioning. The degree of OAR sparing in the arms down group was minimally less robust but still far superior to conventional photon therapy.
Collapse
|
41
|
Shumway DA, Momoh AO, Sabel MS, Jagsi R. Integration of Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2329-2340. [PMID: 32442071 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.02850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Adeyiza O Momoh
- Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Michael S Sabel
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Liang X, Mailhot Vega RB, Li Z, Zheng D, Mendenhall N, Bradley JA. Dosimetric consequences of image guidance techniques on robust optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy for treatment of breast Cancer. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:47. [PMID: 32103762 PMCID: PMC7045466 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01495-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2019] [Accepted: 02/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the consequences of residual setup error on target dose distribution using various image registration strategies for breast cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Among 11 post-lumpectomy patients who received IMPT, 44 dose distributions were computed. For each patient, the original plan (Plan-O) and three verification plans were calculated using different alignments: bony anatomy (VPlan-B), breast tissue (VPlan-T), and skin (VPlan-S). The target coverage were evaluated for each alignment technique. Additionally, 2 subvolumes-BreastNearSkin (1-cm rim of anterior CTV) and BreastNearCW (1-cm rim of posterior CTV)-were created to help localize CTV underdosing. Furthermore, we divided the setup error into the posture error and breast error. Patients with a large posture error and those with good posture setup but a large breast error were identified to evaluate the effect of posture error and breast error. RESULTS For Plan-O, VPlan-B, VPlan-T, and VPlan-S, respectively, the median (interquartile range) breast CTV D95 was 95.7%(94.7-96.3%), 95.1% (93.9-95.7%), 95.2% (94.8-95.6%), and 95.2% (94.9-95.7%); BreastNearCW D95 was 96.9% (95.6-97.3%), 94.8% (93.5-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.1%); and BreastNearSkin D95 was 94.1% (92.7-94.4%), 93.6% (92.2-94.5%), 93.5% (92.4-94.5%), and 94.4% (92.2-94.5%) of the prescription dose. 4/11 patients had ≥1% decrease in breast CTV D95, 1 of whom developed breast edema while the other 3 all had a > 2o posture error. The CTV D95 variation was within 1% for the patients with good posture setup but >2o breast error. CONCLUSION Acceptable target coverage was achieved with all three alignment strategies. Breast tissue and skin alignment maintained the breast target coverage marginally better than bony alignment, with which the posterior CTV along the chest wall is the predominant area affected by under-dosing. For target dose distribution, posture error appears more influential than breast error.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
| | - Raymond B Mailhot Vega
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zuofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Dandan Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Nancy Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Sun T, Lin X, Tong Y, Liu X, Pan L, Tao C, Duan J, Yin Y. Heart and Cardiac Substructure Dose Sparing in Synchronous Bilateral Breast Radiotherapy: A Dosimetric Study of Proton and Photon Radiation Therapy. Front Oncol 2020; 9:1456. [PMID: 31998635 PMCID: PMC6966409 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 12/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) is rare. The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric differences in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to find an optimal radiotherapy technique for bilateral breast cancer radiotherapy. Methods: For 11 patients who received synchronous bilateral whole-breast irradiation without local lymph nodal regions, six plans were designed for each patient: IMRT with a single isocenter (IMRT-ISO1), IMRT with two isocenters (IMRT-ISO2), VMAT with a single isocenter (VMAT-ISO1), VMAT with two isocenters (VMAT-ISO2), HT, and IMPT. The differences between the single- and dual-isocentric plans for IMRT and VMAT were compared, and the plan with the better quality was selected for further dosimetric comparisons with IMPT and HT. The plan aimed for a target coverage of at least 95% with the prescription dose of 50 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)] while minimizing the dose of organs at risk (OARs). Results: IMRT-ISO1 and VMAT-ISO2 plans were adopted for further dosimetric comparisons because of the reduced dose of the heart and/or lungs compared to IMRT-ISO2 and VMAT-ISO1 plans. The dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was significantly higher in IMPT plans than that in all other plans. VMAT and IMPT plans showed the best conformity, whereas IMRT plans showed the worst conformity. Compared to IMRT and VMAT plans, IMPT and HT plans achieved significantly higher dose homogeneity. IMPT plans reduced the mean dose and low dose volume (V5, V10, and V20) of the heart, left anterior descending artery (LAD), and left ventricle (LV). In high-dose volumes of the heart and cardiac substructures, the IMPT, VMAT, and HT techniques showed similar advantages, and IMRT plans increased the values more than other techniques. IMPT plans had the maximal lung and normal tissue sparing but increased the skin dose compared to IMRT and VMAT plans. Conclusions: IMPT plans improve both the target coverage and the OARs sparing, especially for the heart, cardiac substructures (LAD and LV), lungs and normal tissue, in synchronous bilateral breast radiotherapy. VMAT and HT could be selected as suboptimal techniques for SBBC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tao Sun
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Xiutong Lin
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Ying Tong
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Xiao Liu
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Lingjing Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hefei Ion Medical Center, Hefei, China
| | - Cheng Tao
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Jinghao Duan
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Yong Yin
- Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Vogel J, Grewal A, O’Reilly S, Lustig R, Kurtz G, Minturn JE, Shah AC, Waanders AJ, Belasco JB, Cole KA, Fisher MJ, Phillips PC, Balamuth NJ, Storm PB, Hill-Kayser CE. Risk of brainstem necrosis in pediatric patients with central nervous system malignancies after pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1752-1756. [PMID: 31512931 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1659996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
Background: Radiation therapy (RT) plays an important role in management of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) malignancies. Centers are increasingly utilizing pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT). However, the risk of brainstem necrosis has not yet been reported. In this study, we evaluate the rate of brainstem necrosis in pediatric patients with CNS malignancies treated with PBS-PT.Material and methods: Pediatric patients with non-hematologic CNS malignancies treated with PBS-PT who received dose to the brainstem were included. All procedures were approved by the institutional review board. Brainstem necrosis was defined as symptomatic toxicity. The actuarial rate was analyzed by the Kaplan Meier method.Results: One hundred and sixty-six consecutive patients were reviewed. Median age was 10 years (range 0.5-21 years). Four patients (2.4%) had prior radiation. Median maximum brainstem dose in the treated course was 55.4 Gy[RBE] (range 0.15-61.4 Gy[RBE]). In patients with prior RT, cumulative median maximum brainstem dose was 98.0 Gy [RBE] (range 17.0-111.0 Gy [RBE]). Median follow up was 19.6 months (range, 2.0-63.0). One patient who had previously been treated with twice-daily radiation therapy and intrathecal (IT) methotrexate experienced brainstem necrosis. The actuarial incidence of brainstem necrosis was 0.7% at 24 months (95% CI 0.1-5.1%).Conclusion: The rate of symptomatic brainstem necrosis was extremely low after treatment with PBS-PT in this study. Further work to clarify clinical and dosimetric parameters associated with risk of brainstem necrosis after PBS-PT is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Vogel
- Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - A. Grewal
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - S. O’Reilly
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - R. Lustig
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - G. Kurtz
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - J. E. Minturn
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - A. C. Shah
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - A. J. Waanders
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - J. B. Belasco
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - K. A. Cole
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - M. J. Fisher
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - P. C. Phillips
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - N. J. Balamuth
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - P. B. Storm
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - C. E. Hill-Kayser
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
|
46
|
Jimenez RB, Hickey S, DePauw N, Yeap BY, Batin E, Gadd MA, Specht M, Isakoff SJ, Smith BL, Liao EC, Colwell AS, Ho A, Januzzi JL, Passeri J, Neilan TG, Taghian AG, Lu HM, MacDonald SM. Phase II Study of Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Patients With Breast Cancer Requiring Regional Nodal Irradiation. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:2778-2785. [PMID: 31449469 PMCID: PMC7351324 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.02366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/23/2019] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of proton beam radiation therapy (RT) for patients with breast cancer who require regional nodal irradiation. METHODS Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who required postoperative RT to the breast/chest wall and regional lymphatics and who were considered suboptimal candidates for conventional RT were eligible. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 or higher radiation pneumonitis (RP) or any grade 4 toxicity within 3 months of RT. Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional failure, overall survival, and acute and late toxicities per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Strain echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers were obtained before and after RT to assess early cardiac changes. RESULTS Seventy patients completed RT between 2011 and 2016. Median follow-up was 55 months (range, 17 to 82 months). Of 69 evaluable patients, median age was 45 years (range, 24 to 70 years). Sixty-three patients (91%) had left-sided breast cancer, two had bilateral breast cancer, and five had right-sided breast cancer. Sixty-five (94%) had stage II to III breast cancer. Sixty-eight (99%) received systemic chemotherapy. Fifty (72%) underwent immediate reconstruction. Median dose to the chest wall/breast was 49.7 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and to the internal mammary nodes, 48.8 Gy (relative biological effectiveness), which indicates comprehensive coverage. Among 62 surviving patients, the 5-year rates for locoregional failure and overall survival were 1.5% and 91%, respectively. One patient developed grade 2 RP, and none developed grade 3 RP. No grade 4 toxicities occurred. The unplanned surgical re-intervention rate at 5 years was 33%. No significant changes in echocardiography or cardiac biomarkers after RT were found. CONCLUSION Proton beam RT for breast cancer has low toxicity rates and similar rates of disease control compared with historical data of conventional RT. No early cardiac changes were observed, which paves the way for randomized studies to compare proton beam RT with standard RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Alice Ho
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Cao N, Kalet AM, Young LA, Fang LC, Kim JN, Mayr NA, Meyer J. Predictors of cardiac and lung dose sparing in DIBH for left breast treatment. Phys Med 2019; 67:27-33. [PMID: 31629280 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.09.240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2019] [Revised: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 09/25/2019] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
This retrospective study of left breast radiation therapy (RT) investigates the correlation between anatomical parameters and dose to heart or/and left lung in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) compared to free-breathing (FB) technique. Anatomical parameters of sixty-seven patients, treated with a step-and-shoot technique to 50 Gy or 50.4 Gy were included. They consisted of the cardiac contact distances in axial (CCDax) and parasagittal (CCDps) planes, and the lateral heart-to-chest distance (HCD). Correlation analysis was performed to identify predictors for heart and lung dose sparing. Paired t-test and linear regression were used for data analysis with significance level of p = 0.05. All dose metrics for heart and lung were significantly reduced with DIBH, however 21% of patients analyzed had less than 1.0 Gy mean heart dose reduction. Both FB-CCDpsdistance and FB-HCD correlated with FB mean heart dose and mean DIBH heart dose reduction. The strongest correlation was observed for the ratio of FB-CCDpsand FB-HCD with heart dose sparing. A FB-CCDps and FB-HCD model was developed to predict DIBH induced mean heart dose reduction, with 1.04 Gy per unit of FB-CCDps/FB-HCD. Variation between predicted and actual mean heart dose reduction ranged from -0.6 Gy to 0.6 Gy. In this study, FB-CCDps and FB-HCD distance served as predictors for heart dose reduction with DIBH equally, with FB-CCDps/FB-HCD as a stronger predictor. These parameters and the prediction model could be further investigated for use as a tool to better select patients who will benefit from DIBH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ning Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA.
| | - Alan M Kalet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Lori A Young
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - L Christine Fang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Janice N Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Nina A Mayr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Juergen Meyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Mutter RW, Jethwa KR, Wan Chan Tseung HS, Wick SM, Kahila MMH, Viehman JK, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Park SS, Remmes NB, Whitaker TJ, Beltran CJ. Incorporation of Biologic Response Variance Modeling Into the Clinic: Limiting Risk of Brachial Plexopathy and Other Late Effects of Breast Cancer Proton Beam Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 10:e71-e81. [PMID: 31494289 PMCID: PMC7734652 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose: The relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) rises with increasing linear energy transfer toward the end of proton tracks. Presently, there is no consensus on how RBE heterogeneity should be accounted for in breast cancer proton therapy treatment planning. Our purpose was to determine the dosimetric consequences of incorporating a brachial plexus (BP) biologic dose constraint and to describe other clinical implications of biologic planning. Methods and Materials: We instituted a biologic dose constraint for the BP in the context of MC1631, a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). IMPT plans of 13 patients treated before the implementation of the biologic dose constraint (cohort A) were compared with IMPT plans of 38 patients treated on MC1631 after its implementation (cohort B) using (1) a commercially available Eclipse treatment planning system (RBE = 1.1); (2) an in-house graphic processor unit-based Monte Carlo physical dose simulation (RBE = 1.1); and (3) an in-house Monte Carlo biologic dose (MCBD) simulation that assumes a linear relationship between RBE and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (product of RBE and physical dose = biologic dose). Results: Before implementation of a BP biologic dose constraint, the Eclipse mean BP D0.01 cm3 was 107%, and the MCBD estimate was 128% (ie, 64 Gy [RBE = biologic dose] in 25 fractions for a 50-Gy [RBE = 1.1] prescription), compared with 100.0% and 116.0%, respectively, after the implementation of the constraint. Implementation of the BP biologic dose constraint did not significantly affect clinical target volume coverage. MCBD plans predicted greater internal mammary node coverage and higher heart dose than Eclipse plans. Conclusions: Institution of a BP biologic dose constraint may reduce brachial plexopathy risk without compromising target coverage. MCBD plan evaluation provides valuable information to physicians that may assist in making clinical judgments regarding relative priority of target coverage versus normal tissue sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Stephanie M Wick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Jason K Viehman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Radiation-Associated Cardiac Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:905-927. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2019] [Revised: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 07/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
|
50
|
Thorpe CS, Niska JR, Girardo ME, Kosiorek HE, McGee LA, Hartsell WF, Larson GL, Tsai HK, Rossi CJ, Rosen LR, Vargas CE. Proton beam therapy reirradiation for breast cancer: Multi-institutional prospective PCG registry analysis. Breast J 2019; 25:1160-1170. [PMID: 31338974 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2018] [Revised: 02/04/2019] [Accepted: 02/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
To investigate adverse events (AEs, CTCAE v4.0) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) for breast cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 50 patients received PBT reRT for breast cancer in the prospective Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry. Acute AEs occurred within 180 days from start of reRT. Late AEs began or persisted beyond 180 days. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests were utilized. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LFRS). Median follow-up was 12.7 months (0-41.8). Median prior RT dose was 60 Gy (10-96.7). Median reRT dose was 55.1 Gy (45.1-76.3). Median cumulative dose was 110.6 Gy (70.6-156.8). Median interval between RT courses was 103.8 months (5.5-430.8). ReRT included regional nodes in 84% (66% internal mammary node [IMN]). Surgery included the following: 44% mastectomy, 22% wide local excision, 6% lumpectomy, 2% reduction mammoplasty, and 26% no surgery. Grade 3 AEs were experienced by 16% of patients (10% acute, 8% late) and were associated with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (P = 0.04), bilateral recurrence (P = 0.02), and bilateral reRT (P = 0.004). All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving IMN reRT (P = 0.08). At 1 year, LRFS was 93%, and OS was 97%. Patients with gross disease at time of PBT trended toward worse 1-year LRFS (100% without vs. 84% with, P = 0.06). PBT reRT is well tolerated with favorable local control. BMI > 30, bilateral disease, and IMN reRT were associated with grade 3 AEs. Toxicity was acceptable despite median cumulative dose > 110 Gy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joshua R Niska
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Marlene E Girardo
- Division of Biostatistics, Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Heidi E Kosiorek
- Division of Biostatistics, Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | | | - Gary L Larson
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
| | - Henry K Tsai
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | - Carl J Rossi
- Scripps Proton Therapy Center, San Diego, California
| | - Lane R Rosen
- Willis-Knighton Proton Therapy Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
| | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| |
Collapse
|