PURPOSE: To test a prone position against the international-standard supine position in women undergoing whole-breast-radiotherapy (WBRT) after wide-local-excision (WLE) of early breast cancer (BC) in terms of feasibility, set-up errors, and respiratory motion. METHODS: Following WLE of BC with insertion of tumour-bed clips, patients underwent 4D-CT for WBRT-planning in supine and prone positions (the latter using an in-house-designed platform). Patients were randomised to undergo WBRT fractions 1-7 in one position, switching to the alternate position for fractions 8-15 (40Gy/15-fractions total). Cone-beam CT-images (CBCT) were acquired prior to fractions 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 14. CBCT data were matched to planning-CT data using (i) chest-wall and (ii) clips. Systematic and random errors were calculated. Maximal displacement of chest-wall and clips with respiration was measured on 4D-CT. Clinical- to planning-target-volume (CTV-PTV) margins were calculated. Patient-comfort-scores and treatment-times were evaluated. RESULTS:Twenty-five patients were randomized. 192/192 (100%) planned supine fractions and 173/192 (90%) prone fractions were completed. 3D population systematic errors were 1.3-1.9mm (supine) and 3.1-4.3mm (prone) (p=0.02) and random errors 2.6-3.2mm (supine) and 3.8-5.4mm (prone) (p=0.02). Prone positioning reduced chest-wall and clip motion (0.5±0.2mm (prone) versus 2.7±0.5mm (supine) (p<0.001)) with respiration. Calculated CTV-PTV margins were greater for prone (12-16mm) than for supine treatment (10mm). Patient-comfort-scores and treatment times were comparable (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Set-up errors were greater using our prone technique than for our standard supine technique, resulting in the need for larger CTV-PTV margins in the prone position. Further work is required to optimize the prone treatment-platform and technique before it can become a standard treatment option at our institution.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To test a prone position against the international-standard supine position in women undergoing whole-breast-radiotherapy (WBRT) after wide-local-excision (WLE) of early breast cancer (BC) in terms of feasibility, set-up errors, and respiratory motion. METHODS: Following WLE of BC with insertion of tumour-bed clips, patients underwent 4D-CT for WBRT-planning in supine and prone positions (the latter using an in-house-designed platform). Patients were randomised to undergo WBRT fractions 1-7 in one position, switching to the alternate position for fractions 8-15 (40Gy/15-fractions total). Cone-beam CT-images (CBCT) were acquired prior to fractions 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 14. CBCT data were matched to planning-CT data using (i) chest-wall and (ii) clips. Systematic and random errors were calculated. Maximal displacement of chest-wall and clips with respiration was measured on 4D-CT. Clinical- to planning-target-volume (CTV-PTV) margins were calculated. Patient-comfort-scores and treatment-times were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were randomized. 192/192 (100%) planned supine fractions and 173/192 (90%) prone fractions were completed. 3D population systematic errors were 1.3-1.9mm (supine) and 3.1-4.3mm (prone) (p=0.02) and random errors 2.6-3.2mm (supine) and 3.8-5.4mm (prone) (p=0.02). Prone positioning reduced chest-wall and clip motion (0.5±0.2mm (prone) versus 2.7±0.5mm (supine) (p<0.001)) with respiration. Calculated CTV-PTV margins were greater for prone (12-16mm) than for supine treatment (10mm). Patient-comfort-scores and treatment times were comparable (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Set-up errors were greater using our prone technique than for our standard supine technique, resulting in the need for larger CTV-PTV margins in the prone position. Further work is required to optimize the prone treatment-platform and technique before it can become a standard treatment option at our institution.
Authors: Thomas Mulliez; Akos Gulyban; Tom Vercauteren; Annick van Greveling; Bruno Speleers; Wilfried De Neve; Liv Veldeman Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: John Ng; Igor Shuryak; Yanguang Xu; K S Clifford Chao; David J Brenner; Ryan J Burri Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E Fernández-Lizarbe; A Montero; A Polo; R Hernanz; R Morís; S Formenti; A Ramos Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Thomas Mulliez; Liv Veldeman; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Bruno Speleers; Annick Van Greveling; Dieter Berwouts; Vincent Remouchamps; Rudy Van den Broecke; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Julian Jacob; Steve Heymann; Isabelle Borget; Isabelle Dumas; Elyes Riahi; Pierre Maroun; Patrick Ezra; Elena Roberti; Sofia Rivera; Eric Deutsch; Céline Bourgier Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 6.244