Biological Indices Evaluation of Various Treatment Techniques for Left-Sided Breast Treatment

Voluntary versus mechanically-induced deep inspiration breath-hold for left breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) protects critical organs-at-risk (OARs) for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. Guidance systems e.g. surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) improve the positional breast reproducibility and stability during DIBH. In parallel, OARs sparing with DIBH is enhanced through different techniques e.g. prone position, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). By inducing repeated DIBH with the same level of positive pressure, mechanically-assisted and non-invasive ventilation (MANIV) could potentially combine these DIBH optimizations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, multicenter and single-institution non-inferiority trial. Sixty-six patients eligible for adjuvant left whole-breast radiotherapy in supine position were equally assigned between mechanically-induced DIBH (MANIV-DIBH) and voluntary DIBH guided by SGRT (sDIBH). The co-primary endpoints were positional breast stability and reproducibility with a non-inferiority margin of 1 mm. Secondary endpoints were tolerance assessed daily via validated scales, treatment time, dose to OARs and their inter-fraction positional reproducibility.

RESULTS

Differences between both arms for positional breast reproducibility and stability occurred at a sub-millimetric level (p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). The left anterior descending artery near-max dose (14,6 ± 12,0 Gy vs. 7,7 ± 7,1 Gy, p = 0,018) and mean dose (5,0 ± 3,5 Gy vs. 3,0 ± 2,0 Gy, p = 0,009) were improved with MANIV-DIBH. The same applied for the V_5Gy of the left ventricle (2,4 ± 4,1 % vs. 0,8 ± 1,6 %, p = 0,001) as well as for the left lung V_20Gy (11,4 ± 2,8 % vs. 9,7 ± 2,7 %, p = 0,019) and V_30Gy (8,0 ± 2,6 % vs. 6,5 ± 2,3 %, p = 0,0018). Better heart's inter-fraction positional reproducibility was observed with MANIV-DIBH. Tolerance and treatment time were similar.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical ventilation provides the same target irradiation accuracy as with SGRT while better protecting and repositioning OARs.

Critical Evaluation of Secondary Cancer Risk After Breast Radiation Therapy with Hybrid Radiotherapy Techniques

Background

As hybrid radiotherapy technique can effectively balance dose distribution between targets and organs, it is necessary to evaluate the late effects related to radiotherapy. The aim of the study was to calculate and provide individual estimates of the risks for hybrid radiotherapy techniques in breast cancer patients.

Methods

Whole-breast irradiation was performed in 43 breast cancer patients by using 3D conformal, intensity-modulated and hybrid techniques. The excess absolute risk (EAR), lifetime attributable risk (LAR) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated to estimate risks in organs. The risk variability in contralateral breast was assessed by using the patient's anatomic parameters.

Results

Compared with IMRT and FinF, hybrid techniques achieved satisfactory dose distribution and comparable or lower estimated risks in organs. The LAR was estimated to be up to 0.549% for contralateral lung with advantages of tangential techniques over H-VMAT. For ipsilateral lung, the LAR was estimated to be up to 9.021%, but lower in H-VMAT and FinF without significant difference. The risk of thyroid was negligible in overall estimation. For contralateral breast, the LAR was estimated to be up to 0.865% with advantages of MH-IMRT and H-VMAT over TF-IMRT. The fraction of individual variability could be explained by using anatomic parameters of minimum breast distance (MBD) and minimum target concave angle (θ_MTCA). NTCP for all analyzed endpoints was significantly higher in TF-IMRT relative to FinF and hybrid techniques, while TH-IMRT and H-VMAT were presenting lower toxicity risk. However, MH-IMRT presented a higher probability of toxicity in lung. For most cases, H-VMAT demonstrated a benefit for contralateral breast, heart and lung sparing.

Conclusion

The optimal treatment should be performed individually according to anatomic parameters and balances between EAR and NTCP. Individual assessment may assist in achieving optimal balances between targets and organs as well as supporting clinical decision-making processes.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of fulfilling the criteria for critical organs in irradiation of patients with breast cancer using the deep inspiration breath-hold and free breathing techniques

Introduction: The aim of the study was to evaluate organ-at-risk dose sparing in treatment plans for patients with left-sided breast cancer irradiated with Deep Inspiration Breath Hold (DIBH) and Free Breathing (FB) techniques.

Material and methods: Twenty patients with left-sided breast cancer were analyzed and divided into two groups. Group A included 10 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, while group B involved 10 patients with metastatic breast cancer spreading to regional lymph nodes. All patients went through the DIBH coaching. For planning purposes, CT scans were obtained in both DIBH and FB. Mean heart dose (Dmean,heart), mean heart volume receiving 50% of the prescribed dose (V50), V20 (V20L.lung), V10 (V10L.lung) and V5 for left lung (V5L.lung), the volume of the PTV receiving a dose greater than or equal to 95% of the prescribed dose (V95 [%]), the maximum point dose (Dmax), and the volume of PTV receiving 107% of the prescribed dose were reported.

Results: In all 20 analyzed pairs of plans, a reduction by more than half in the mean heart dose in DIBH technique plans was achieved, as well as a significant reduction was found in DIBH plans for the heart V50. In 19 patients, the use of the DIBH technique also reduced the volume of the left lung receiving doses of 20 Gy, 10 Gy, and 5 Gy compared to the FB technique.

Conclusions: Dosimetric analysis showed that the free breathing plans don’t fulfill the criteria for a mean heart dose (group B) and the left lung receiving a 20 Gy dose (group A) compared to the DIBH plans. Radiation therapy of left breast cancer with the use of the DIBH technique results in a significant dose reduction in the heart and also reduces the dose in the left lung in the majority of patients, compared to the FB procedure.

Comparison of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Techniques Regarding Secondary Cancer Risk and Normal Tissue Complication Probability - Modelling and Measurements Using a 3D-Printed Phantom

Background

Radiotherapy after breast-conserving therapy is a standard postoperative treatment of breast cancer, which can be carried out with a variety of irradiation techniques. The treatment planning must take into consideration detrimental effects on the neighbouring organs at risk-the lung, the heart, and the contralateral breast, which can include both short- and long-term effects represented by the normal tissue complication probability and secondary cancer risk.

Patients and Methods

In this planning study, we investigate intensity-modulated (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) radiotherapy techniques including sequential or simultaneously integrated boosts as well as interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy boost techniques of 38 patients with breast-conserving surgery retrospectively. We furthermore develop a 3D-printed breast phantom add-on to allow for catheter placement and to measure the out-of-field dose using thermoluminescent dosimeters placed inside an anthropomorphic phantom. Finally, we estimate normal tissue complication probabilities using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and secondary cancer risks using the linear non-threshold model (out-of-field) and the model by Schneider et al. (in-field).

Results

The results depend on the combination of primary whole-breast irradiation and boost technique. The normal tissue complication probabilities for various endpoints are of the following order: 1%-2% (symptomatic pneumonitis, ipsilateral lung), 2%-3% (symptomatic pneumonitis, whole lung), and 1%-2% (radiation pneumonitis grade ≥ 2, whole lung). The additional relative risk of ischemic heart disease ranges from +25% to +35%. In-field secondary cancer risk of the ipsilateral lung in left-sided treatment is around 50 per 10,000 person-years for 20 years after exposure at age 55. Out-of-field estimation of secondary cancer risk results in approximately 5 per 10,000 person-years each for the contralateral lung and breast.

Conclusions

In general, 3D-CRT shows the best risk reduction in contrast to IMRT. Regarding the boost concepts, brachytherapy is the most effective method in order to minimise normal tissue complication probability and secondary cancer risk compared to teletherapy boost concepts. Hence, the 3D-CRT technique in combination with an interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy boost is most suitable in terms of risk avoidance for treating breast cancer with techniques including boost concepts.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safely achieving single prolonged breath-holds of > 5 minutes for radiotherapy in the prone, front crawl position

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer radiotherapy is increasingly delivered supine with multiple, short breath-holds. There may be heart and lung sparing advantages for locoregional breast cancer of both prone treatment and in a single breath-hold. We test here whether single prolonged breath-holds are possible in the prone, front crawl position.

METHODS

19 healthy volunteers were trained to deliver supine, single prolonged breath-holds with pre-oxygenation and hypocapnia. We tested whether all could achieve the same durations in the prone, front crawl position.

RESULTS

19 healthy volunteers achieved supine, single prolonged breath-holds for mean of 6.2 ± 0.3 min. All were able to hold safely for the same duration while prone (6.1 ± 0.2 min ns. by paired ANOVA). With prone, the increased weight on the chest did not impede chest inflation, nor the ability to hold air in the chest. Thus, the rate of chest deflation (mean anteroposterior deflation movement of three craniocaudally arranged surface markers on the spinal cord) was the same (1.2 ± 0.2, 2.0 ± 0.4 and 1.2 ± 0.4 mm/min) as found previously during supine prolonged breath-holds. No leakage of carbon dioxide or air was detectable into the facemask.

CONCLUSION

Single prolonged (>5 min) breath-holds are equally possible in the prone, front crawl position.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Prolonged breath-holds in the front crawl position are possible and have the same durations as in the supine position. Such training would therefore be feasible for some patients with breast cancer requiring loco-regional irradiation. It would have obvious advantages for hypofractionation.

Effects of deep inspiration breath hold on prone photon or proton irradiation of breast and regional lymph nodes

We report on a comparative dosimetrical study between deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and shallow breathing (SB) in prone crawl position for photon and proton radiotherapy of whole breast (WB) and locoregional lymph node regions, including the internal mammary chain (LN_MI). We investigate the dosimetrical effects of DIBH in prone crawl position on organs-at-risk for both photon and proton plans. For each modality, we further estimate the effects of lung and heart doses on the mortality risks of different risk profiles of patients. Thirty-one patients with invasive carcinoma of the left breast and pathologically confirmed positive lymph node status were included in this study. DIBH significantly decreased dose to heart for photon and proton radiotherapy. DIBH also decreased lung doses for photons, while increased lung doses were observed using protons because the retracting heart is displaced by low-density lung tissue. For other organs-at-risk, DIBH resulted in significant dose reductions using photons while minor differences in dose deposition between DIBH and SB were observed using protons. In patients with high risks for cardiac and lung cancer mortality, average thirty-year mortality rates from radiotherapy-related cardiac injury and lung cancer were estimated at 3.12% (photon DIBH), 4.03% (photon SB), 1.80% (proton DIBH) and 1.66% (proton SB). The radiation-related mortality risk could not outweigh the ~ 8% disease-specific survival benefit of WB + LN_MI radiotherapy in any of the assessed treatments.

Is prone free breathing better than supine deep inspiration breath-hold for left whole-breast radiotherapy? A dosimetric analysis

PURPOSE

The advantage of prone setup compared with supine for left-breast radiotherapy is controversial. We evaluate the dosimetric gain of prone setup and aim to identify predictors of the gain.

METHODS

Left-sided breast cancer patients who had dual computed tomography (CT) planning in prone free breathing (FB) and supine deep inspiration breath-hold (DiBH) were retrospectively identified. Radiation doses to heart, lungs, breasts, and tumor bed were evaluated using the recently developed mean absolute dose deviation (MADD). MADD measures how widely the dose delivered to a structure deviates from a reference dose specified for the structure. A penalty score was computed for every treatment plan as a weighted sum of the MADDs normalized to the breast prescribed dose. Changes in penalty scores when switching from supine to prone were assessed by paired t-tests and by the number of patients with a reduction of the penalty score (i.e., gain). Robust linear regression and fractional polynomials were used to correlate patients' characteristics and their respective penalty scores.

RESULTS

Among 116 patients identified with dual CT planning, the prone setup, compared with supine, was associated with a dosimetric gain in 72 (62.1%, 95% CI: 52.6-70.9%). The most significant predictors of a gain with the prone setup were the breast depth prone/supine ratio (>1.6), breast depth difference (>31 mm), prone breast depth (>77 mm), and breast volume (>282 mL).

CONCLUSION

Prone compared with supine DiBH was associated with a dosimetric gain in 62.1% of our left-sided breast cancer patients. High pendulousness and moderately large breast predicted for the gain.

Dosimetric evaluation of left ventricle and left anterior descending artery in left breast radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the dosimetric results of the identification of the left ventricle (LV) and left anterior descending artery (LAD) as organs at risk (OARs) in adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients who had previously received RT in our center were evaluated retrospectively. All patients had undergone BCS operation for left breast cancer. LV and LAD were contoured as OARs on the same simulation CTs for these patients whose treatment was previously completed in which LV and LAD were not defined as OARs. Complying with the initial plans, intensity-modulated RT plans with 7-9 fields were made on the computer. Planning target volume (PTV), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), monitor unit (MU) values, and doses of OARs were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in PTV 50 (D 50% and D 98%), PTV 60 (D 2% and D 50%), HI, CI, and MU values when treatment plans and control plans were compared (p > 0.05). While it was possible to protect the heart, LAD, and LV better, LAD and LV were not contoured in the treatment plans, and they received higher doses compared to the control plans (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the other OARs.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is essential to define the lower anatomical regions of the heart as OARs. Otherwise, the doses taken by these regions are ignored and may be maintained less than possible. In our study, it was shown that LV and LAD doses were significantly reduced even in the same center and planning by the same team.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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