OBJECTIVE: Standard tangential radiotherapy techniques after breast conservative surgery (BCS) often results in the irradiation of the tip of the left ventricle and the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), potentially increasing cardiovascular morbidity. The importance of minimising radiation dose to these structures has attracted increased interest in recent years. We tested a hypothesis that in some cases, by manipulating beam angles and accepting lower-than-prescribed doses of radiation in small parts of the breast distant from the surgical excision site, significant cardiac sparing can be achieved compared with more standard plans. METHODS: A sample of 12 consecutive patients undergoing radiotherapy after left-sided BCS was studied. All patients were planned with a 6 MV tangential beam, beam angles were manipulated carefully and if necessary lower doses were given to small parts of the breast distant from the surgical excision site to minimise cardiac irradiation ("institutional" plan). Separate "hypothetical standard" plans were generated for seven patients using set field margins that met published guidelines. RESULTS: In seven patients, the institutional plans resulted in lower doses to the LAD and myocardium than the hypothetical standard plans. In the other five patients, LAD and myocardial doses were deemed minimal using the hypothetical standard plan, which in these patients corresponded to the institutional plan (the patients were actually treated using the institutional plans). CONCLUSION: Much attention has been devoted to ways of minimising cardiac radiation dose. This small sample demonstrates that careful manipulation of beam angles can often be a simple, but effective technique to achieve this.
OBJECTIVE: Standard tangential radiotherapy techniques after breast conservative surgery (BCS) often results in the irradiation of the tip of the left ventricle and the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), potentially increasing cardiovascular morbidity. The importance of minimising radiation dose to these structures has attracted increased interest in recent years. We tested a hypothesis that in some cases, by manipulating beam angles and accepting lower-than-prescribed doses of radiation in small parts of the breast distant from the surgical excision site, significant cardiac sparing can be achieved compared with more standard plans. METHODS: A sample of 12 consecutive patients undergoing radiotherapy after left-sided BCS was studied. All patients were planned with a 6 MV tangential beam, beam angles were manipulated carefully and if necessary lower doses were given to small parts of the breast distant from the surgical excision site to minimise cardiac irradiation ("institutional" plan). Separate "hypothetical standard" plans were generated for seven patients using set field margins that met published guidelines. RESULTS: In seven patients, the institutional plans resulted in lower doses to the LAD and myocardium than the hypothetical standard plans. In the other five patients, LAD and myocardial doses were deemed minimal using the hypothetical standard plan, which in these patients corresponded to the institutional plan (the patients were actually treated using the institutional plans). CONCLUSION: Much attention has been devoted to ways of minimising cardiac radiation dose. This small sample demonstrates that careful manipulation of beam angles can often be a simple, but effective technique to achieve this.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gerben R Borst; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Suzanne den Hollander; Anja Betgen; Peter Remeijer; Aline van Giersbergen; Nicola S Russell; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Harry Bartelink; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A S Lichter; M E Lippman; D N Danforth; T d'Angelo; S M Steinberg; E deMoss; H D MacDonald; C M Reichert; M Merino; S M Swain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Editha A Krueger; Matthew J Schipper; Todd Koelling; Robin B Marsh; James B Butler; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pehr A Lind; Robert Pagnanelli; Lawrence B Marks; Salvador Borges-Neto; Caroline Hu; Su Min Zhou; Kim Light; Patricia H Hardenbergh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ming Hui Chen; Ethan P Cash; Peter G Danias; Kraig V Kissinger; Bruce A Bornstein; Lois M Rhodes; Rebecca Gelman; Jay R Harris; Warren J Manning Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2002 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245