PURPOSE: The risk of secondary lung malignancy (SLM) is a significant concern for women treated with whole-breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer. In this study, a biologically based secondary malignancy model was used to quantify the risk of secondary lung malignancies (SLMs) associated with several common methods of delivering whole-breast radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Both supine and prone computed tomography simulations of 15 women with early breast cancer were used to generate standard fractionated and hypofractionated whole-breast RT treatment plans for each patient. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of the ipsilateral breast and lung were calculated for each patient on each plan. A model of spontaneous and radiation-induced carcinogenesis was used to determine the relative risks of SLMs for the different treatment techniques. RESULTS: A higher risk of SLMs was predicted for supine breast irradiation when compared with prone breast irradiation for both the standard fractionation and hypofractionation schedules (relative risk [RR] = 2.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.30-2.88, and RR = 2.68, 95% CI = 2.39-2.98, respectively). No difference in risk of SLMs was noted between standard fractionation and hypofractionation schedules in either the supine position (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.97-1.14) or the prone position (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.88-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with supine whole-breast irradiation, prone breast irradiation is associated with a significantly lower predicted risk of secondary lung malignancy. In this modeling study, fractionation schedule did not have an impact on the risk of SLMs in women treated with whole-breast RT for early breast cancer.
PURPOSE: The risk of secondary lung malignancy (SLM) is a significant concern for women treated with whole-breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer. In this study, a biologically based secondary malignancy model was used to quantify the risk of secondary lung malignancies (SLMs) associated with several common methods of delivering whole-breast radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Both supine and prone computed tomography simulations of 15 women with early breast cancer were used to generate standard fractionated and hypofractionated whole-breast RT treatment plans for each patient. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of the ipsilateral breast and lung were calculated for each patient on each plan. A model of spontaneous and radiation-induced carcinogenesis was used to determine the relative risks of SLMs for the different treatment techniques. RESULTS: A higher risk of SLMs was predicted for supine breast irradiation when compared with prone breast irradiation for both the standard fractionation and hypofractionation schedules (relative risk [RR] = 2.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.30-2.88, and RR = 2.68, 95% CI = 2.39-2.98, respectively). No difference in risk of SLMs was noted between standard fractionation and hypofractionation schedules in either the supine position (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.97-1.14) or the prone position (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.88-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with supine whole-breast irradiation, prone breast irradiation is associated with a significantly lower predicted risk of secondary lung malignancy. In this modeling study, fractionation schedule did not have an impact on the risk of SLMs in women treated with whole-breast RT for early breast cancer.
Authors: Igor Shuryak; Philip Hahnfeldt; Lynn Hlatky; Rainer K Sachs; David J Brenner Journal: Radiat Environ Biophys Date: 2009-06-05 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: C Metayer; C F Lynch; E A Clarke; B Glimelius; H Storm; E Pukkala; T Joensuu; F E van Leeuwen; M B van't Veer; R E Curtis; E J Holowaty; M Andersson; T Wiklund; M Gospodarowicz; L B Travis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Youlia M Kirova; Laetitia Gambotti; Yann De Rycke; Jacques R Vilcoq; Bernard Asselain; Alain Fourquet Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Timothy J Whelan; Jean-Philippe Pignol; Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian; Robert MacKenzie; Sameer Parpia; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Julie Bowen; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ken Schneider; Sunil Gulavita; Carolyn Freeman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Silvia C Formenti; Daniela Gidea-Addeo; Judith D Goldberg; Daniel F Roses; Amber Guth; Barry S Rosenstein; Keith J DeWyngaert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth L Kaufman; Judith S Jacobson; Dawn L Hershman; Manisha Desai; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Igor Shuryak; Philip Hahnfeldt; Lynn Hlatky; Rainer K Sachs; David J Brenner Journal: Radiat Environ Biophys Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Zoltán Varga; Katalin Hideghéty; Tamás Mezo; Alíz Nikolényi; László Thurzó; Zsuzsanna Kahán Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stefanie Corradini; Hendrik Ballhausen; Helmut Weingandt; Philipp Freislederer; Stephan Schönecker; Maximilian Niyazi; Cristoforo Simonetto; Markus Eidemüller; Ute Ganswindt; Claus Belka Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Pavel Kundrát; Hannes Rennau; Julia Remmele; Sabine Sebb; Cristoforo Simonetto; Jan Christian Kaiser; Guido Hildebrandt; Ulrich Wolf; Markus Eidemüller Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.996