Dosimetric consequences of image guidance techniques on robust optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy for treatment of breast Cancer

Robustness of hypofractionated breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery with free breathing

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the robustness with respect to the positional variations of five planning strategies in free-breathing breast hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for patients after breast-conserving surgery.

Methods

Twenty patients who received breast HFRT with 42.72 Gy in 16 fractions were retrospectively analyzed. Five treatment planning strategies were utilized for each patient, including 1) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning (IMRTpure); 2) IMRT planning with skin flash tool extending and filling the fluence outside the skin by 2 cm (IMRTflash); 3) IMRT planning with planning target volume (PTV) extended outside the skin by 2 cm in the computed tomography dataset (IMRTePTV); 4) hybrid planning, i.e., 2 Gy/fraction three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy combined with 0.67 Gy/fraction IMRT (IMRThybrid); and 5) hybrid planning with skin flash (IMRThybrid-flash). All plans were normalized to 95% PTV receiving 100% of the prescription dose. Six additional plans were created with different isocenter shifts for each plan, which were 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, and 10 mm distally in the X (left-right) and Y (anterior-posterior) directions, namely, (X,Y), to assess their robustness, and the corresponding doses were recalculated. Variation of dosimetric parameters with increasing isocenter shift was evaluated.

Results

All plans were clinically acceptable. In terms of robustness to isocenter shifts, the five planning strategies followed the pattern IMRTePTV, IMRThybrid-flash, IMRTflash, IMRThybrid, and IMRTpure in descending order. V 95% of IMRTePTV maintained at 99.6% ± 0.3% with a (5,5) shift, which further reduced to 98.2% ± 2.0% with a (10,10) shift. IMRThybrid-flash yielded the robustness second to IMRTePTV with less risk from dose hotspots, and the corresponding V 95% maintained >95% up until (5,5).

Conclusion

Considering the dosimetric distribution and robustness in breast radiotherapy, IMRTePTV performed best at maintaining high target coverage with increasing isocenter shift, while IMRThybrid-flash would be adequate with positional uncertainty<5 mm.

Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience

Purpose

Proton therapy use for breast cancer has grown due to advantages in coverage and potentially reduced late toxicities compared with conventional radiation therapy. We aimed to provide recommendations for robustness criteria, daily imaging, and quality assurance computed tomography (QA CT) frequency for these patients.

Methods and Materials

All patients treated for localized breast cancer at the Johns Hopkins Proton Center between November 2019 and February 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Daily shift information was extracted and examined through control charts. If an adaptive plan was used, the time to replan was recorded. Three and 5 mm setup uncertainty was used to calculate robustness. Robust evaluation of QA CTs was compared with initial robustness range for breast/chest wall and lymph node target coverage.

Results

Sixty-six patients were included: 19 with intact breast, 25 with non-reconstructed chest wall, and 22 with chest wall plus expanders or implants. Sixteen percent, 13%, and 41% of breast, chest wall, and expander/implant patients had a replan. Only patients with expanders or implants required 2 adaptive plans. Daily shift data showed large variation and did not correlate with plan adaptation. Patients without adaptive plans had QA CTs with dose-volume histogram metrics within robustness more frequently than those with adaptive plans. Using 3 mm robustness for patients who did not require an adaptive plan, 91% to 100% of patients had QA CTs within robustness, while 55% to 60% of patients with an adaptive plan had QA CTs within robustness for the axilla, internal mammary nodes, and supraclavicular nodes. Five millimeter setup uncertainty did not significantly improve this.

Conclusions

We recommend using daily cone beam CT because of the large variation in daily setup with 3 mm setup uncertainty in robustness analysis. If daily cone beam CT imaging is not available, then larger setup uncertainty should be used. Two QA CTs should be conducted during treatment if the patient has expanders or implants; otherwise, one QA CT is sufficient.

RBE-weighted dose and its impact on the risk of acute coronary event for breast cancer patients treated with intensity modulated proton therapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted dose to the heart and to estimate RBE uncertainties when assuming a constant RBE of 1.1, for breast cancer patients receiving intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Further, to study the impact of RBE uncertainties on the risk of an acute coronary event (ACE).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed 20 patients who received IMPT to either the left breast (n = 10) or left chest wall (n = 10) and regional lymph nodes. The Monte Carlo simulation engine, MCsquare, was used to simulate the dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) map. The RBE-weighted dose to the heart and its substructures was calculated using three different RBE models. The risk of ACE was estimated per its linear relationship with mean heart dose (MHD) as established by Darby et al.

RESULTS

The median MHD increased from 1.33 GyRBE assuming an RBE of 1.1 to 1.64, 1.87, and 1.99 GyRBE when using the RBE-weighted dose models. The median values (and ranges) of the excess absolute risk of ACE were 0.4% (0.1%-0.8%) when assuming an RBE of 1.1, and 0.6% (0.2%-1.0%), 0.6% (0.2%-1.1%), and 0.7% (0.2%-1.1%) with the RBE-weighted models. For our patient cohort, the maximum excess absolute risk of ACE increased by 0.3% with the RBE-weighted doses compared to the constant RBE of 1.1, reaching an excess absolute ACE risk of 1.1%. The interpatient LETd variation was small for the relevant high-dose regions of the heart.

CONCLUSION

All three RBE models predicted a higher biological dose compared to the clinical standard dose assuming a constant RBE of 1.1. An underestimation of the biological dose results in underestimation of the ACE risk. Analyzing the voxel-by-voxel biological dose and the LET map alongside clinical outcomes is warranted in the development of a more accurate normal-tissue complication probability model.

Target motion management in breast cancer radiation therapy

Background

Over the last two decades, breast cancer remains the main cause of cancer deaths in women. To treat this type of cancer, radiation therapy (RT) has proved to be efficient. RT for breast cancer is, however, challenged by intrafractional motion caused by respiration. The problem is more severe for the left-sided breast cancer due to the proximity to the heart as an organ-at-risk. While particle therapy results in superior dose characteristics than conventional RT, due to the physics of particle interactions in the body, particle therapy is more sensitive to target motion.

Conclusions

This review highlights current and emerging strategies for the management of intrafractional target motion in breast cancer treatment with an emphasis on particle therapy, as a modern RT technique. There are major challenges associated with transferring real-time motion monitoring technologies from photon to particles beams. Surface imaging would be the dominant imaging modality for real-time intrafractional motion monitoring for breast cancer. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance and ultra high dose rate (FLASH)-RT seem to be state-of-the-art approaches to deal with 4D RT for breast cancer.

Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee

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.

Incorporation of the LETd-weighted biological dose in the evaluation of breast intensity-modulated proton therapy plans

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.