Boost delineation in breast radiation therapy: Isotropic versus anisotropic margin expansion

Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: Technological Advances and Current Challenges

Accelerated partial breast irradiation is a mature, standard-of-care treatment option for many women with early-stage breast cancer. In this paper, we discuss technological challenges and advances in the delivery of accurate and reproducible accelerated partial breast irradiation.

A novel, adaptable, radiographically opaque, multi-plane continuous filament marker for optimizing tissue identification, radiation planning, and radiographic follow-up

Background

In breast cancer treatment, marking the tumor bed is an important aspect of the surgical component of therapy. Clear delineation of the tumor bed allows radiation oncologists a defined target for planning and delivering postoperative radiation therapy (XRT). Tumor bed marking also allows radiographic follow-up of the tumor bed on subsequent breast imaging. The aim of this assessment is to evaluate the ease and feasibility of utilizing a tumor bed filament marker (VeraFormÒ, Videra Surgical inc., USA) as a marker in post-operative benign surgical sites and malignant breast surgical tumor beds in breast cancer surgery.

Methods

The filament marker is a novel radiopaque surgical filament that in lieu of clips and other markers is implanted in the surgical tumor bed during breast surgery. Following development of the filament marker, the researchers used breast phantoms and radiographic images to develop a series of geometric patterns of placement options that optimize comprehensive multi-plane radiographic interpretation of the exact tumor bed or surgical margin. Three breast surgeons at 3 separate institutions then used this filament as a continuous multi-plane marker in 20 patients during breast conservation surgery. In these patients, the filament marker was thus used to mark the tumor bed (breast cancer surgery) or surgical site (benign breast disease) instead of the more traditional devices such as clips or other metallic open framework devices. We then assessed 2 important factors related to this device; (I) the ease, feasibility, and accuracy of in vivo placement with oncoplastic and non-oncoplastic breast conservation surgery techniques; (II) the radiographic footprint this device left on standard imaging protocols of post-operative mammogram (MMG), computed tomography (CT) scan, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations, and ultrasounds (USs) for both routine follow-up imaging and for standard radiation planning.

Results

There were no adverse events reported with the use of this device. The cases were then reviewed by a multidisciplinary team that included the original surgeon, a breast radiologist, and radiation oncologist. Their unanimous evaluation was that the filament marker clearly delineated all sides and planes of the tumor bed (cancer surgery) or surgical site (benign disease). Regardless of surgical technique utilized, this information provided precise 3D guidance for radiation planning and delivery as well as radiographic follow-up. The surgeons involved reported that delineating the bed with the filament marker was a quick and easy procedure and did not interfere with performing the planned surgical technique. Radiologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists found that the filament marker was not only radiographically opaque on CT and MMG, but also caused no significant artifact on CT, MRI, US, or MMG.

Conclusions

The continuous multi-plane filament marker is a new device that fulfills the heretofore unmet need for safe and improved tumor bed and tissue site marking. It is an easy to place, non-palpable continuous multi-plane radiographic opaque tissue marker that seems to better delineate the tumor bed, regardless of type of breast surgery performed, while providing a more accurate 3D image for radiation planning and radiographic follow-up on MMG MRI, CT and US.

A comparison of a brachytherapy and an external beam radiotherapy boost in breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer: local and any recurrences

PURPOSE

Adding a tumour bed boost to whole-breast irradiation in breast-conserving therapy reduces local recurrence rates. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the boost technique influences the magnitude of the effect.

METHODS

Patients treated with breast-conserving therapy for invasive breast cancer between 2000 and 2007 were included in the analysis. Three groups were considered according to the applied boost technique: electrons, brachytherapy or photons. The endpoints were local recurrence and any recurrence. Cox regression models were used and correction for the confounders in the association between boost technique and outcome was performed using multivariable models.

RESULTS

1879 tumours were included in the analysis. 1448 tumours (77.1%) were treated with an electron boost, 334 (17.8%) with a brachytherapy boost and 97 (5.2%) with a photon boost. Median follow-up was 13.1 years. The 10-year local recurrence rate was 2.2%. In multivariable analysis with correction for age, pathological Tumour or Node stage (pT, pN), chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, there was no significant difference between the three groups for the local recurrence risk (p = 0.89). 10-year any recurrence rate was 10.8%. In multivariable analysis with correction for age, pT, pN, resection margins, radiotherapy, year of diagnosis, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, there was no significant difference between the brachytherapy group and the electron group or the photon group (p = 0.11 and p = 0.28, respectively). The photon group had more recurrences compared to the electron group (Hazard Ratio 1.81, 95% Confidence Interval 1.12; 2.92, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The local recurrence risk reduction of the tumour bed boost in breast-conserving therapy is not influenced by the applied boost technique.

Three-dimensional dose evaluation in breast cancer patients to define decision criteria for adaptive radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Dose-guided adaptive radiation therapy (DGART) is the systematic evaluation and adaptation of the dose delivery during treatment for an individual patient. The aim of this study is to define quantitative action levels for DGART by evaluating changes in 3D dose metrics in breast cancer and correlate them with clinical expert evaluation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-three breast cancer treatment plans were evaluated, that were clinically adapted based on institutional IGRT guidelines. Reasons for adaptation were variation in seroma, hematoma, edema, positioning or problems using voluntary deep inspiration breath hold. Sixteen patients received a uniform dose to the breast (clinical target volume 1; CTV1). Six patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost to CTV2. The original plan was copied to the CT during treatment (re-CT) or to the stitched cone-beam CT (CBCT). Clinical expert evaluation of the re-calculated dose distribution and extraction of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters were performed. The extreme scenarios were evaluated, assuming all treatment fractions were given to the original planning CT (pCT), re-CT or CBCT. Reported results are mean ± SD.

RESULTS

DVH results showed a mean dose (Dmean) difference between pCT and re-CT of -0.4 ± 1.4% (CTV1) and -1.4 ± 2.1% (CTV2). The difference in V95% was -2.6 ± 4.4% (CTV1) and -9.8 ± 8.3% (CTV2). Clinical evaluation and DVH evaluation resulted in a recommended adaptation in 17/23 or 16/23 plans, respectively. Applying thresholds on the DVH parameters: D_mean CTV, V95% CTV, D_max, mean lung dose, volume exceeding 107% (uniform dose) or 90% (SIB) of the prescribed dose enabled the identification of patients with an assumed clinically relevant dose difference, with a sensitivity of 0.89 and specificity of 1.0. Re-calculation on CBCT imaging identified the same plans for adaptation as re-CT imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical expert evaluation can be related to quantitative DVH parameters on re-CT or CBCT imaging to select patients for DGART.