Sea Change: A Decade of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Breast Cancer

An IMRT planning technique for treating whole breast or chest wall with regional lymph nodes on Halcyon and Ethos

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Field size limitations on Halcyon and Ethos treatment machines largely preclude use of the conventional monoisocentric three-field technique for breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes. We present an alternative, IMRT-based planning approach that facilitates treatment on Halcyon and Ethos while preserving plan quality.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Eight breast and regional node cases (four left-sided, four right-sided) were planned for an Ethos machine using a 15-17 field IMRT technique. Institutional plan quality metrics for CTV and PTV coverage and OAR sparing were assessed. Five plans (four right-sided, one left-sided) were also planned using a hybrid 3D multisocenter technique. CTV coverage and OAR sparing were compared to the IMRT plans. Eclipse scripting tools were developed to aid in beam placement and plan evaluation through a set of dosimetric scorecards, and both are shared publicly.

RESULTS

On average, the IMRT plans achieved breast CTV and PTV coverage at 50 Gy of 97.9% and 95.7%, respectively. Supraclavicular CTV and PTV coverages at 45 Gy were 100% and 95.5%. Axillary lymph node CTV and PTV coverages at 45 Gy were 100% and 97.1%, and IMN CTV coverage at 45 Gy was 99.2%. Mean ipsilateral lung V20 Gy was 19.3%, and average mean heart dose was 1.6 Gy for right-sided cases and 3.0 Gy for left-sided. In comparison to the hybrid 3D plans, IMRT plans achieved higher breast and supraclavicular CTV coverage (99.9% vs. 98.6% and 99.9% vs. 93.4%), higher IMN coverage (99.6% vs. 78.2%), and lower ipsilateral lung V20 Gy (19.6% vs. 28.2%).

CONCLUSION

Institutional plan quality benchmarks were achieved for all eight cases using the IMRT-based planning approach. The IMRT-based planning approach offered superior conformity and OAR sparing than a competing hybrid 3D approach.

Large institutional experience of early outcomes and dosimetric findings with postoperative stereotactic partial breast irradiation in breast cancer

PURPOSE

To analyze the dosimetric and toxicity outcomes of patients treated with postoperative stereotactic partial breast irradiation (S-PBI).

METHODS

We identified 799 women who underwent S-PBI at our institution between January 2016 and December 2022. The most commonly used dose-fraction and technique were 30 Gy in 5 fractions (91.7 %) and a robotic stereotactic radiation system with real-time tracking (83.7 %). The primary endpoints were dosimetric parameters and radiation-related toxicities. For comparison, a control group undergoing ultra-hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (UF-WBI, n = 468) at the same institution was selected.

RESULTS

A total of 815 breasts from 799 patients, with a median planning target volume (PTV) volume of 89.6 cm3, were treated with S-PBI. Treatment plans showed that the mean and maximum doses received by the PTV were 96.2 % and 104.8 % of the prescription dose, respectively. The volume of the ipsilateral breast that received 50 % of the prescription dose was 32.3 ± 8.9 %. The mean doses for the ipsilateral lung and heart were 2.5 ± 0.9 Gy and 0.65 ± 0.39 Gy, respectively. Acute toxicity occurred in 175 patients (21.5 %), predominantly of grade 1. Overall rate of late toxicity was 4 % with a median follow-up of 31.6 months. Compared to the UF-WBI group, the S-PBI group had comparably low acute toxicity (21.5 % vs. 25.2 %, p = 0.12) but significantly lower dosimetric parameters for all organs-at-risks (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort, S-PBI demonstrated favorable dosimetric and toxicity profiles. Considering the reduced radiation exposure to surrounding tissues, external beam PBI with advanced techniques should at least be considered over traditional WBI-based approaches for PBI candidates.

A small footprint couch-top support device for image-guided radiotherapy of heavy patients

PURPOSE

Patients with body weights close to or above 400 lbs present unique challenges in radiation therapy since the weight limit of most treatment couches decreases as the couch-top extends toward the treatment gantry. The purpose of this work was to develop a small footprint couch-top support platform to safely perform image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for extremely heavy patients.

METHODS

One way to protect the couch-top from damage and prevent a catastrophic breakdown is to provide additional support as the couch extends toward the treatment gantry. To allow a maximal range of gantry movement, a small-footprint adjustable jack stand, placed underneath the couch-top, was chosen and modified from a commercial jack stand (with 1100 lbs capacity). The couch could be easily extended longitudinally and laterally with a modified 8-ball-transfer plate mounted at the top. The operation of a couch-top support platform was used for two heavy patients after phantom testing. kV and MV imaging options and ranges were quantified.

RESULTS

The custom-constructed couch-top support platform was found to provide stable support with smooth couch shifts. The small footprint allowed gantry rotation from 133° to 227°, which would allow both fixed beam radiotherapy and partial-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). For IGRT, orthogonal 2D kV-kV image pairs with source angles of 40^o and 130^o were acquired and tested successfully. With the support platform, two clinical cases with patient weights greater than 415 lbs were successfully treated with image-guided partial arc VMAT radiotherapy. The study demonstrated the safety and efficiency of using this new couch-top support platform to prevent couch failure from treating heavy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A new couch-top support platform has been designed, assembled, and tested for IGRT. The new support platform is easy to use, cost-effective, and allows extremely heavy patients to be treated safely and robustly with IGRT and VMAT.

Association of the Oncology Care Model with Value-Based Changes in Use of Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Radiation utilization for breast cancer and metastatic bone disease varies in modality, fractionation and cost, despite evidence demonstrating equal effectiveness and consensus recommendations such as Choosing Wisely that advocate for higher value care. We assessed whether the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model for practices providing chemotherapy to patients with cancer, impacted the overall use and value of radiation therapy in terms of Choosing Wisely recommendations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used CMS administrative data to identify beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare who initiated chemotherapy episodes at OCM and propensity-matched comparison practices. Difference-in-difference (DID) analyses evaluated the effect of OCM on overall use of post-operative radiation for breast cancer, use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionation for breast cancer, and fractionation patterns for treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast or prostate cancer. We performed additional analyses stratified by the presence or absence of a radiation oncologist in the practice.

RESULTS

Among 27,859 post-operative breast cancer episodes, OCM had no effect on overall use of radiation therapy following breast surgery (DID percentage point difference=0.4%, 90%CI=-1.7%, 2.4%), or on use of IMRT in this setting (DID=-0.6, 90%CI=-3.1, 2.0). Among 19,366 metastatic bone disease episodes, OCM had no effect on fractionation patterns for palliation of bone metastases (DID for ≤10 fractions=-1.1%, 90%CI-2.6%, 0.4% and DID for single fraction=-0.2%, 90%CI=-1.9%, 1.6%). Results were similar for practices with and without a radiation oncologist. We did not evaluate the effect of OCM on hypofractionated radiation after breast-conserving surgery due to evidence of differential baseline trends.

CONCLUSIONS

OCM had no effect on use of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer, or fractionation patterns for metastatic bone disease. Future payment models directly focused on radiation oncology providers may be better poised to improve the value of radiation oncology care.