1
|
Fatima H, Abbas P, Alshehri SM. Balancing Innovation and Patient Care in Breast Cancer: Integrating Hypofractionated Proton Therapy With Breast Reconstruction Outcomes. Cureus 2024; 16:e58056. [PMID: 38738134 PMCID: PMC11088419 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/14/2024] Open
Abstract
This review aims to assess the application of hypofractionated proton therapy in breast cancer reconstruction, analyzing its advantages, challenges, and broader implications for patient care. The goal is to comprehensively understand how this innovative approach can be integrated into breast cancer treatment. Proton therapy exhibits superior target coverage and safety, reducing radiation-induced complications and sparing critical organs, but skin toxicity outcomes differ from photon therapy. Tissue expanders are vital in breast reconstruction, employing innovative planning for positive long-term outcomes and highlighting the importance of balancing cancer treatment effectiveness with cosmetic outcomes. Hypofractionated proton therapy and breast cancer reconstruction present promising innovations with notable advantages in target coverage and organ sparing. However, variations in skin toxicity outcomes and the need for a careful balance between treatment effectiveness and cosmetic outcomes underscore ongoing challenges. Future directions should focus on refining treatment protocols, optimizing patient selection criteria, and integrating emerging technologies to enhance therapeutic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hadia Fatima
- Radiation Oncology Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, SAU
| | - Paras Abbas
- Oncology Department, Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital, Nuclear Medicine Oncology and Radiotherapy Institute, Islamabad, PAK
| | - Salem M Alshehri
- Radiation Oncology Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, SAU
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gao RW, Mullikin TC, Aziz KA, Afzal A, Smith NL, Routman DM, Gergelis KR, Harmsen WS, Remmes NB, Tseung HSWC, Shiraishi SS, Boughey JC, Ruddy KJ, Harless CA, Garda AE, Waddle MR, Park SS, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:846-856. [PMID: 37244627 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2023] [Revised: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT. RESULTS A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm. CONCLUSIONS With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Khaled A Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Na L Smith
- Sanford Cancer Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - William S Harmsen
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Allison E Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Piruzan E, Vosoughi N, Mahani H. Modeling and optimization of respiratory-gated partial breast irradiation with proton beams - A Monte Carlo study. Comput Biol Med 2022; 147:105666. [DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2022] [Revised: 04/24/2022] [Accepted: 05/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
4
|
Proton therapy for the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2022; 171:77-83. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
5
|
Li H, Dong L, Bert C, Chang J, Flampouri S, Jee KW, Lin L, Moyers M, Mori S, Rottmann J, Tryggestad E, Vedam S. Report of AAPM Task Group 290: Respiratory motion management for particle therapy. Med Phys 2022; 49:e50-e81. [PMID: 35066871 PMCID: PMC9306777 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2021] [Revised: 12/28/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Christoph Bert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Joe Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Kyung-Wook Jee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Liyong Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Michael Moyers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Shinichiro Mori
- Research Center for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba, Japan
| | - Joerg Rottmann
- Center for Proton Therapy, Proton Therapy Singapore, Proton Therapy Pte Ltd, Singapore
| | - Erik Tryggestad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sastry Vedam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pastor-Serrano O, Habraken S, Lathouwers D, Hoogeman M, Schaart D, Perkó Z. How should we model and evaluate breathing interplay effects in IMPT? Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [PMID: 34757958 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac383f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2021] [Accepted: 11/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Breathing interplay effects in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) arise from the interaction between target motion and the scanning beam. Assessing the detrimental effect of interplay and the clinical robustness of several mitigation techniques requires statistical evaluation procedures that take into account the variability of breathing during dose delivery. In this study, we present such a statistical method to model intra-fraction respiratory motion based on breathing signals and assess clinical relevant aspects related to the practical evaluation of interplay in IMPT such as how to model irregular breathing, how small breathing changes affect the final dose distribution, and what is the statistical power (number of different scenarios) required for trustworthy quantification of interplay effects. First, two data-driven methodologies to generate artificial patient-specific breathing signals are compared: a simple sinusoidal model, and a precise probabilistic deep learning model generating very realistic samples of patient breathing. Second, we investigate the highly fluctuating relationship between interplay doses and breathing parameters, showing that small changes in breathing period result in large local variations in the dose. Our results indicate that using a limited number of samples to calculate interplay statistics introduces a bigger error than using simple sinusoidal models based on patient parameters or disregarding breathing hysteresis during the evaluation. We illustrate the power of the presented statistical method by analyzing interplay robustness of 4DCT and Internal Target Volume (ITV) treatment plans for a 8 lung cancer patients, showing that, unlike 4DCT plans, even 33 fraction ITV plans systematically fail to fulfill robustness requirements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oscar Pastor-Serrano
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Steven Habraken
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,HollandPTC, Department of Radiation Oncology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Danny Lathouwers
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Mischa Hoogeman
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,HollandPTC, Department of Radiation Oncology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Dennis Schaart
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.,HollandPTC, Department of Radiation Oncology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Zoltán Perkó
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mutter RW, Choi JI, Jimenez RB, Kirova YM, Fagundes M, Haffty BG, Amos RA, Bradley JA, Chen PY, Ding X, Carr AM, Taylor LM, Pankuch M, Vega RBM, Ho AY, Nyström PW, McGee LA, Urbanic JJ, Cahlon O, Maduro JH, MacDonald SM. Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:337-359. [PMID: 34048815 PMCID: PMC8416711 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.05.110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Rachel B Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Youlia M Kirova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Marcio Fagundes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Bruce G Haffty
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Richard A Amos
- Proton and Advanced Radiotherapy Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Peter Y Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Antoinette M Carr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Leslie M Taylor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Medicine Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois
| | | | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Petra Witt Nyström
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden and the Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - James J Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, UC San Diego Health, Encinitas, California
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John H Maduro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Can internal mammary lymph nodes irradiation bring survival benefits for breast cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,705 patients in 12 studies. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:42. [PMID: 33622345 PMCID: PMC7903795 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01772-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 02/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of prophylactic irradiation of internal mammary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Methods The computer searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, CNKI, Wanfang Medical Network, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database to find clinical studies on internal mammary lymph node irradiation (IMNI) in breast cancer. The quality of the included literature was evaluated according to the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Stata14 software was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 12,705 patients in 12 articles were included for meta-analyzed. Compared with patients who unirradiated internal mammary lymph nodes (non-IMNI), the risk of death for patients after IMNI was reduced by 11% (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79–1.00, P = 0.0470); DFS of group mixed N+ patients (high risk group) was significantly improved after IMNI (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49–0.69, P < 0.001). Further subgroup analysis shows that compared with non-IMNI, DFS was significantly increased in N1or ypN1 subgroup (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49–0.87, P = 0.003) and N2or ypN2 subgroup (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37–0.70, P < 0.001) after IMNI, but there was no statistical difference in DFS between the IMNI and non-IMNI groups in N0 subgroup (HR 1.02 95% CI 0.87–1.20, P = 0.794) and N3 or ypN3 subgroup (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.49–1.45, P = 0.547). No serious incidents were reported in all the included studies, and most of the acute and late side effects were mild and tolerable. Conclusion Under modern radiotherapy techniques, IMNI can safely and effectively bring clinical benefits to N1–2 breast cancer patients, but its role in N0, N3 breast cancer patients remains to be further studied.
Collapse
|
9
|
Klaassen L, Petoukhova AL, Habraken SJM, Jacobs J, Sattler MGA, Verhoeven K, Klaver YLB. Effect of breathing motion on robustness of proton therapy plans for left-sided breast cancer patients with indication for locoregional irradiation. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:222-228. [PMID: 33269958 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1825800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the dosimetric impact of breathing motion on robustly optimized proton therapy treatment plans for left-sided breast cancer patients with an indication for locoregional irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Clinical Target Volumes (CTVs) (left-sided breast, level 1 to 4 axillary lymph nodes, interpectoral and internal mammary lymph node regions) and organs at risk were delineated on 4 D-CTs of ten female patients. After treatment planning to a prescribed dose of 40.05 Gy(RBE) in 15 fractions on the time-averaged CT, the dose was calculated on all ten phases of the breathing cycle. Robustness to setup (5 mm) and range errors (3%) was evaluated for those ten phases. Correlations were evaluated between the phases of the breathing cycle and the D98% of the CTV and the Dmean of the heart. RESULTS Correlations coefficients were between -0.12 and 0.29. At the most extreme values of the 28 robustness scenarios, the clinical goals were met for all but two patients. The mean heart dose was 0.41 Gy(RBE) with a standard deviation of 0.31 Gy(RBE) of proton therapy plans. CONCLUSION The effect of breathing motion on the robustness of proton therapy treatment plans for this patient group is minor and not of clinical significance. Based on this patient group, a deep-inspiration breath hold seems to be unnecessary to improve robustness for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L. Klaassen
- HollandPTC, The Netherlands
- Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - A. L. Petoukhova
- HollandPTC, The Netherlands
- Haaglanden Medical Center, Department of Medical Physics, Burgemeester Banninglaan 1, Leidschendam, BA, The Netherlands
| | - S. J. M. Habraken
- HollandPTC, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - M. G. A. Sattler
- HollandPTC, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K. Verhoeven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MAASTRO, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ranger A, Dunlop A, Hutchinson K, Convery H, Maclennan MK, Chantler H, Twyman N, Rose C, McQuaid D, Amos RA, Griffin C, deSouza NM, Donovan E, Harris E, Coles CE, Kirby A. A Dosimetric Comparison of Breast Radiotherapy Techniques to Treat Locoregional Lymph Nodes Including the Internal Mammary Chain. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018; 30:346-353. [PMID: 29483041 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2018.01.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2017] [Revised: 01/02/2018] [Accepted: 01/03/2018] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Radiotherapy target volumes in early breast cancer treatment increasingly include the internal mammary chain (IMC). In order to maximise survival benefits of IMC radiotherapy, doses to the heart and lung should be minimised. This dosimetry study compared the ability of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, arc therapy and proton beam therapy (PBT) techniques with and without breath-hold to achieve target volume constraints while minimising dose to organs at risk (OARs). MATERIALS AND METHODS In 14 patients' datasets, seven IMC radiotherapy techniques were compared: wide tangent (WT) three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and PBT, each in voluntary deep inspiratory breath-hold (vDIBH) and free breathing (FB), and tomotherapy in FB only. Target volume coverage and OAR doses were measured for each technique. These were compared using a one-way ANOVA with all pairwise comparisons tested using Bonferroni's multiple comparisons test, with adjusted P-values ≤ 0.05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS One hundred per cent of WT(vDIBH), 43% of WT(FB), 100% of VMAT(vDIBH), 86% of VMAT(FB), 100% of tomotherapy FB and 100% of PBT plans in vDIBH and FB passed all mandatory constraints. However, coverage of the IMC with 90% of the prescribed dose was significantly better than all other techniques using VMAT(vDIBH), PBT(vDIBH) and PBT(FB) (mean IMC coverage ± 1 standard deviation = 96.0% ± 4.3, 99.8% ± 0.3 and 99.0% ± 0.2, respectively). The mean heart dose was significantly reduced in vDIBH compared with FB for both the WT (P < 0.0001) and VMAT (P < 0.0001) techniques. There was no advantage in target volume coverage or OAR doses for PBT(vDIBH) compared with PBT(FB). CONCLUSIONS Simple WT radiotherapy delivered in vDIBH achieves satisfactory coverage of the IMC while meeting heart and lung dose constraints. However, where higher isodose coverage is required, VMAT(vDIBH) is the optimal photon technique. The lowest OAR doses are achieved by PBT, in which the use of vDIBH does not improve dose statistics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Ranger
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - A Dunlop
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - K Hutchinson
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - H Convery
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - H Chantler
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - N Twyman
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - C Rose
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - D McQuaid
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - R A Amos
- University College London, London, UK
| | - C Griffin
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - N M deSouza
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - E Donovan
- CVSSP, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - E Harris
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - C E Coles
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - A Kirby
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Impact of physiological breathing motion for breast cancer radiotherapy with proton beam scanning – An in silico study. Phys Med 2017; 39:88-94. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2017] [Revised: 05/31/2017] [Accepted: 06/02/2017] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
|