Evaluation of a Novel Field-placement Algorithm for Locoregional Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Including the Internal Mammary Chain

AIMS

Irradiation of the internal mammary chain (IMC) is increasing following recently published data, but the need for formal delineation of lymph node volumes is slowing implementation in some healthcare settings. A field-placement algorithm for irradiating locoregional lymph nodes including the IMC could reduce the resource impact of introducing irradiation of the IMC. This study describes the development and evaluation of such an algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An algorithm was developed in which six points representing lymph node clinical target volume borders (based on European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology consensus nodal contouring guidelines) were placed on computed tomography-defined anatomical landmarks and used to place tangential and nodal fields. Single-centre testing in 20 cases assessed the success of the algorithm in covering planning target volumes (PTVs) and adequately sparing organs at risk. Plans derived using the points algorithm were also compared with plans generated following formal delineation of nodal PTVs, using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Timing data for point placement were collected. Multicentre testing using the same methods was then carried out to establish whether the technique was transferable to other centres.

RESULTS

Single-centre testing showed that 95% of cases met the nodal PTV coverage dose constraints (binomial probability confidence interval 75.1-99.9%) with no statistically significant reduction in mean heart dose or ipsilateral lung V17Gy associated with formal nodal delineation. In multicentre testing, 69% of cases met nodal PTV dose constraints and there was a statistically significant difference in IMC PTV coverage using the points algorithm when compared with formally delineated nodal volumes (P < 0.01). However, there was no difference in axillary level 1-4 PTV coverage (P = 0.11) with all cases meeting target volume constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal strategy for breast and locoregional lymph node radiotherapy is target volume delineation. However, use of this novel points-based field-placement algorithm results in dosimetrically acceptable plans without the need for formal lymph node contouring in a single-centre setting and for the breast and level 1-4 axilla in a multicentre setting. Further quality assurance measures are needed to enable implementation of the algorithm for irradiation of the IMC in a multicentre setting.

A Dosimetric Comparison of Breast Radiotherapy Techniques to Treat Locoregional Lymph Nodes Including the Internal Mammary Chain

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.