Organ-sparing techniques and dose-volume constrains used in breast cancer radiation therapy - Results from European and Latin American surveys

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.

Differences in Patterns of Care and Referral Between Proton and Photon Therapy

Purpose

To report demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were more likely to receive proton beam therapy (PBT) than photon therapy from facilities with access to proton centers.

Materials and Methods

We utilized the national cancer database to identify the facilities with access to PBT between 2004 and 2015 and compared the relative usage of photons and PBT for demographic and clinical scenarios in breast, prostate, and nonsmall cell cancer.

Results

In total, 231 facilities with access to proton centers accounted for 168 323 breast, 39 975 lung, and 77 297 prostate cancer patients treated definitively. Proton beam therapy was used in 0.5%, 1.5%, and 8.9% of breast, lung, and prostate cases. Proton beam therapy was correlated with a farther distance traveled and longer start time from diagnosis for each site (P < .05).For breast, demographic correlates of PBT were treatment in the west coast (odds ratio [OR] = 4.81), age <60 (OR = 1.25), white race (OR = 1.94), and metropolitan area (OR = 1.58). Left-sided cancers (OR = 1.28), N2 (OR = 1.71), non-ER+/PR+/Her2Neu- cancers (OR = 1.24), accelerated partial breast irradiation (OR = 1.98), and hypofractionation (OR = 2.35) were predictors of PBT.For nonsmall cell cancer, demographic correlates of PBT were treatment in the south (OR = 2.6), metropolitan area (OR = 1.72), and Medicare insurance (OR = 1.64). Higher comorbid score (OR = 1.36), later year treated (OR = 3.16), and hypofractionation (not SBRT) (OR = 3.7) were predictors of PBT.For prostate, correlates of PBT were treatment in the west coast (OR = 2.48), age <70 (OR = 1.19), white race (OR = 1.41), metropolitan area (OR = 1.25), higher income/education (OR = 1.25), and treatment at an academic center (OR = 33.94). Lower comorbidity score (OR = 1.42), later year treated (OR = 1.37), low-risk disease (OR = 1.45), definitive compared to postoperative (OR = 6.10), and conventional fractionation (OR = 1.64) were predictors of PBT.

Conclusion

Even for facilities with established referrals to proton centers, PBT utilization was low; socioeconomic status was potentially a factor. Proton beam therapy was more often used with left-sided breast and low-risk prostate cancers, without a clear clinical pattern in lung cancer.

Proton Reirradiation for High-Risk Recurrent or New Primary Breast Cancer

Radiotherapy is an integral component of multidisciplinary breast cancer care. Given how commonly radiotherapy is used in the treatment of breast cancer, many patients with recurrences have received previous radiotherapy. Patients with new primary breast cancer may also have received previous radiotherapy to the thoracic region. Curative doses and comprehensive field photon reirradiation (reRT) have often been avoided in these patients due to concerns for severe toxicities to organs-at-risk (OARs), such as the heart, lungs, brachial plexus, and soft tissue. However, many patients may benefit from definitive-intent reRT, such as patients with high-risk disease features such as lymph node involvement and dermal/epidermal invasion. Proton therapy is a potentially advantageous treatment option for delivery of reRT due to its lack of exit dose and greater conformality that allow for enhanced non-target tissue sparing of previously irradiated tissues. In this review, we discuss the clinical applications of proton therapy for patients with breast cancer requiring reRT, the currently available literature and how it compares to historical photon reRT outcomes, treatment planning considerations, and questions in this area warranting further study. Given the dosimetric advantages of protons and the data reported to date, proton therapy is a promising option for patients who would benefit from the added locoregional disease control provided by reRT for recurrent or new primary breast cancer.

Proton Therapy in the Adolescent and Young Adult Population

BACKGROUND

Adolescent and young adult cancer patients are at high risk of developing radiation-associated side effects after treatment. Proton beam radiation therapy might reduce the risk of these side effects for this population without compromising treatment efficacy.

METHODS

We review the current literature describing the utility of proton beam radiation therapy in the treatment of central nervous system tumors, sarcomas, breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma for the adolescent and young adult cancer population.

RESULTS

Proton beam radiation therapy has utility for the treatment of certain cancers in the young adult population. Preliminary data suggest reduced radiation dose to normal tissues, which might reduce radiation-associated toxicities. Research is ongoing to further establish the role of proton therapy in this population.

CONCLUSION

This report highlights the potential utility of proton beam radiation for certain adolescent young adult cancers, especially with reducing radiation doses to organs at risk and thereby potentially lowering risks of certain treatment-associated toxicities.

Proton therapy for reducing heart and cardiac substructure doses in Indian breast cancer patients

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.

Outcomes and toxicities after proton partial breast radiotherapy for early stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer: 3-Year results of a phase II multi-center trial

Purpose

Proton therapy (PT) for partial breast irradiation (PBI) in early-stage breast cancer can decrease morbidity versus photon PBI with superior organs-at-risk sparing. We report 3-year outcomes of the first prospective, multicenter, phase II trial of proton PBI.

Methods and Materials

This Proton Collaborative Group phase II trial (PCG BRE007-12) recruited women ≥ 50 years with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ≤3cm, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing breast conserving surgery followed by proton PBI (40 Gy(RBE), 10 daily fractions). Primary endpoint was freedom from ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence. Adverse events were prospectively graded using CTCAEv4.0. Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) assessed patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL).

Results

Thirty-eight evaluable patients enrolled between 2/2013-11/2016. Median age was 67 years (range 50-79); 55 % had left-sided disease, and median tumor size was 0.9 cm. Treatment was delivered in ≥ 2 fields predominantly with uniform scanning PT (n = 37). At 35-month median follow-up (12-62), all patients were alive, and none had local, regional or distant disease progression. One patient developed an ER-negative contralateral IDC. Seven grade 2 adverse events occurred; no radiotherapy-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred. Changes in BCTOS subdomain mean scores were maximum 0.36, indicating no meaningful change in PRQOL. Median heart volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy), lung V20Gy, and lung V10Gy were 0 %, 0 % and 0.19 %, respectively.

Conclusion

At 3 years, proton PBI provided 100 % cancer control for early-stage, ER-positive breast cancer. Toxicities are minimal, and PRQOL remains acceptable with continued follow-up. These findings support PT as a safe and effective PBI delivery option.

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

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.

Particle Therapy for Breast Cancer

Particle therapy has received increasing attention in the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical properties that may enhance patient quality of life and reduce the late effects of therapy. In this review, we will examine the rationale for the use of proton and carbon therapy in the treatment of breast cancer and highlight their potential for sparing normal tissue injury. We will discuss the early dosimetric and clinical studies that have been pursued to date in this domain before focusing on the remaining open questions limiting the widespread adoption of particle therapy.

Proton reirradiation for recurrent or new primary breast cancer in the setting of prior breast irradiation

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.

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.

Cardiac substructure exposure in breast radiotherapy: a comparison between intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy

INTRODUCTION

Proton therapy for breast cancer treatment reduces cardiac radiation exposure. Left-sided breast cancer patients with indication for internal mammary chain (IMC) irradiation are most at risk of radiation-induced cardiotoxicity. This study aims to evaluate in this situation the potential dosimetric benefit of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) at the cardiac substructure level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cardiac substructures were retrospectively delineated according to ESTRO guidelines on the simulation CT scans of fourteen left-sided breast cancer patients having undergone conserving surgery and adjuvant locoregional free-breathing (FB-) or deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH-) VMAT with internal mammary chain irradiation. IMPT treatment was re-planned on the simulation CT scans. Mean doses to cardiac substructures were retrieved and compared between VMAT treatment plans and IMPT simulation plans. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between mean doses delivered to cardiac substructures using these two techniques.

RESULTS

Mean doses to all cardiac substructures were significantly lower with IMPT than with VMAT. Regardless of the irradiation technique, the most exposed cardiac substructure was the mid segment of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA). Pearson correlation coefficients between mean doses to cardiac substructures were usually weak and statistically non-significant for IMPT; mean heart dose (MHD) only correlated with mean doses delivered to the right ventricle, to the mid segment of the right coronary artery (RCA) and, to a lesser extent, to the LADCA.

CONCLUSION

The dosimetric benefit of IMPT over conformal photon therapy was consistently observed for all cardiac substructures. MHD may not be a reliable dosimetric parameter for precise cardiac exposure evaluation when planning IMPT.

Future Perspectives of Proton Therapy in Minimizing the Toxicity of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy

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.

Evaluating cardiac substructure radiation exposure in breast rotational intensity modulated radiation therapy: Effects of cancer laterality, fractionation and deep inspiration breath-hold

PURPOSE

Rotational intensity-modulated radiation therapy currently has a growing role in breast cancer radiation therapy, since this radiation technique reduces cardiac radiation exposure while homogeneously covering target volumes. This study aims to evaluate radiation exposure of cardiac substructures across a broad spectrum of breast cancer cases differing by cancer laterality, fractionation regimen and addition of deep-inspiration breath hold.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cardiac substructures were delineated following guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) for forty-four breast cancer patients having undergone conserving surgery and adjuvant rotational intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Target volumes consisted of the whole breast with a boost, axillary and internal mammary nodes. Patients were treated using free-breathing technique for left-sided or right-sided, normofractionated or hypofractionated helical tomotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy, or using deep-inspiration breath hold for left-sided normofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy. Mean and maximum doses to cardiac substructures were retrieved. Correlations were performed between mean- and maximum radiation doses to cardiac substructures.

RESULTS

Left-sided and right-sided irradiations were associated with different cardiac substructure exposure patterns despite comparable mean heart dose: 7.21Gy for left-sided normofractionated regimen, 6.28Gy for right-sided normofractionated regimen. Deep-inspiration breath hold reduced mean doses to almost all cardiac substructures for left-sided irradiation, but did not decrease maximum doses to coronary arteries. Correlations between mean- and maximum doses to cardiac substructures were usually moderate, but stronger for right-sided irradiation.

CONCLUSION

Despite comparable mean heart dose, cardiac substructure radiation exposure patterns with rotational intensity-modulated radiation therapy strongly depend on the breast side, which could trigger clinically different long-term cardiotoxicity events. Deep-inspiration breath hold improves cardiac substructure dosimetry. Mean- and maximum heart dose could probably not be used as surrogate markers for precise cardiac substructure evaluation. In a near future, clinical practice and cardiotoxicity studies could possibly gain by considering cardiac substructure in a more systematic manner, possibly relying on cardiac autosegmentation algorithms.

Patient-specific quality assurance and plan dose errors on breast intensity-modulated proton therapy

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.

Commissioning and beam characterization of the first gantry-mounted accelerator pencil beam scanning proton system

PURPOSE

To present and discuss beam characteristics and commissioning process of the first gantry-mounted accelerator single room pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton system.

METHODS

The Mevion HYPERSCAN employs a design configuration with a synchrocyclotron mounted on the gantry to eliminate the traditional beamline and a nozzle that contains the dosimetry monitoring chambers, the energy modulator (Energy Selector (ES)), and an Adaptive Aperture (AA). To characterize the beam, we measured the integrated depth dose (IDDs) for 12 energies, from highest energy of 227 MeV down to 28 MeV with a range difference ~ 2 cm between the adjacent energies, using a large radius Bragg peak chamber; single-spot profiles in air at five locations along the beam central axis using radiochromic EBT3 film and cross compared with a scintillation detector; and determined the output using a densely packed spot map. To access the performance of AA, we measured interleaf leakage and the penumbra reduction effect. Monte Carlo simulation using TOPAS was performed to study spot size variation along the beam path, beam divergence, and energy spectrum.

RESULTS

This proton system is calibrated to deliver 1 Gy dose at 5 cm depth in water using the highest beam energy by delivering 1 MU/spot to a 10 × 10 cm² map with a 2.5 mm spot spacing. The spot size in air varies from 4 mm to 26 mm from 227 MeV to 28 MeV at the isocenter plane with the nozzle retracted 23.6 cm from isocenter. The beam divergence of 28 MeV beam is ~ 52.7 mrad, which is nearly 22 times that of 227 MeV proton beam. The binary design of the ES has resulted in shifts of the effective SSD toward the isocenter as the energy is modulated lower. The peaks of IDD curves have a constant 80%-80% width of 8.4 mm at all energies. The interleaf leakage of the AA is less than 1.5% at the highest energy; and the AA can reduce the penumbra by 2 mm to 13 mm for the 227 and 28 MeV energies at isocenter plane in air.

CONCLUSIONS

The unique design of the HYPERSCAN proton system has yielded beam characteristics significantly different from that of other proton systems in terms of the Bragg peak shapes, spot sizes, and the penumbra sharpening effect of the AA. The combination of the ES and AA has made PBS implementation possible without using beam transport line and range shifter devices. Different considerations may be required in treatment planning optimization to account for different design and beam characteristics.

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

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 > 2^o posture error. The CTV D95 variation was within 1% for the patients with good posture setup but >2^o 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.

Normal tissue sparing potential of scanned proton beams with and without respiratory gating for the treatment of internal mammary nodes in breast cancer radiotherapy

Proton therapy has shown potential for reducing doses to normal tissues in breast cancer radiotherapy. However data on the impact of protons when including internal mammary nodes (IMN) in the target for breast radiotherapy is comparatively scarce. This study aimed to evaluate normal tissue doses when including the IMN in regional RT with scanned proton beams, with and without respiratory gating. The study cohort was composed of ten left-sided breast patients CT-scanned during enhanced inspiration gating (EIG) and free-breathing (FB). Proton plans were designed for the target including or excluding the IMN. Targets and organs-at-risk were delineated according to RTOG guidelines. Comparison was performed between dosimetric parameters characterizing target coverage and OAR radiation burden. Statistical significance of differences was tested using a paired, two-tailed Student's t-test. Inclusion of the IMN in the target volume led to a small increase of the cardiopulmonary burden. The largest differences were seen for the ipsilateral lung where the mean dose increased from 6.1 to 6.6 Gy (RBE) (P < 0.0001) in FB plans and from 6.9 to 7.4 Gy (RBE) (P = 0.003) in EIG plans. Target coverage parameters were very little affected by the inclusion of IMN into the treatment target. Radiotherapy with scanned proton beams has the potential of maintaining low cardiovascular burden when including the IMN into the target, irrespective of whether respiratory gating is used or not.

Proton therapy for breast cancer: progress & pitfalls

As the number of patients cured from breast cancer increases with improvements in multidisciplinary care, emphasis on reducing late toxicities of treatment has increased, in order to improve long-term quality of life. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a form of radiotherapy that uses particles with unique physical properties that enable treatment delivery with minimal dose deposition beyond the treatment target. Therefore, PBT has emerged as an exciting radiotherapy modality for breast cancer due to the ability to minimize exposure to the heart, lungs, muscle, and bone. Herein, we review the rationale for PBT in breast cancer, potential clinical applications, and the available clinical data supporting its use. We also address some of the technical and logistical challenges and areas of ongoing research that will ultimately establish the role for PBT for breast cancer in the years ahead.

Establishing Cost-Effective Allocation of Proton Therapy for Breast Irradiation

PURPOSE

Cardiac toxicity due to conventional breast radiation therapy (RT) has been extensively reported, and it affects both the life expectancy and quality of life of affected women. Given the favorable oncologic outcomes in most women irradiated for breast cancer, it is increasingly paramount to minimize treatment side effects and improve survivorship for these patients. Proton RT offers promise in limiting heart dose, but the modality is costly and access is limited. Using cost-effectiveness analysis, we provide a decision-making tool to help determine which breast cancer patients may benefit from proton RT referral.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Markov cohort model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of proton versus photon RT for breast cancer management. The model was analyzed for different strata of women based on age (40 years, 50 years, and 60 years) and the presence or lack of cardiac risk factors (CRFs). Model entrants could have 1 of 3 health states: healthy, alive with coronary heart disease (CHD), or dead. Base-case analysis assumed CHD was managed medically. No difference in tumor control was assumed between arms. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to test model robustness and the influence of including catheterization as a downstream possibility within the health state of CHD.

RESULTS

Proton RT was not cost-effective in women without CRFs or a mean heart dose (MHD) <5 Gy. Base-case analysis noted cost-effectiveness for proton RT in women with ≥1 CRF at an approximate minimum MHD of 6 Gy with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. For women with ≥1 CRF, probabilistic sensitivity analysis noted the preference of proton RT for an MHD ≥5 Gy with a similar willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the cost of treatment, scenarios do exist whereby proton therapy is cost-effective. Referral for proton therapy may be cost-effective for patients with ≥1 CRF in cases for which photon plans are unable to achieve an MHD <5 Gy.