Literature DB >> 22494590

Prospective assessment of optimal individual position (prone versus supine) for breast radiotherapy: volumetric and dosimetric correlations in 100 patients.

Stella C Lymberis1, John Keith deWyngaert, Preeti Parhar, Arpit M Chhabra, Maria Fenton-Kerimian, Jengwha Chang, Tsivia Hochman, Amber Guth, Daniel Roses, Judith D Goldberg, Silvia C Formenti.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Damage to heart and lung from breast radiotherapy is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer development. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate which position is best to spare lung and heart from radiotherapy exposure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred consecutive Stage 0-IIA breast cancer patients consented to participate in a research trial that required two computed tomography simulation scans for planning both supine and prone positions. The optimal position was defined as that which best covered the contoured breast and tumor bed while it minimized critical organ irradiation, as quantified by the in-field heart and lung volume. The trial was designed to plan the first 100 patients in each position to study correlations between in-field volumes of organs at risk and dose.
RESULTS: Fifty-three left and 47 right breast cancer patients were consecutively accrued to the trial. In all patients, the prone position was optimal for sparing lung volume compared to the supine setup (mean lung volume reduction was 93.5 cc for right and 103.6 cc for left breast cancer patients). In 46/53 (87%) left breast cancer patients best treated prone, in-field heart volume was reduced by a mean of 12 cc and by 1.8 cc for the other 7/53 (13%) patients best treated supine. As predicted, supine-prone differences in in-field volume and mean dose of heart and lung were highly correlated (Spearman's correlation coefficient for left breast cancer patients was 0.90 for heart and 0.94 for lung and 0.92 for right breast cancer patients for lung).
CONCLUSIONS: Prone setup reduced the amount of irradiated lung in all patients and reduced the amount of heart volume irradiated in 87% of left breast cancer patients. In-field organ volume is a valid surrogate for predicting dose; the trial continued to the planned target of 400.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22494590     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  44 in total

1.  A planning comparison of 7 irradiation options allowed in RTOG 1005 for early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Guang-Pei Chen; Feng Liu; Julia White; Frank A Vicini; Gary M Freedman; Douglas W Arthur; X Allen Li
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 1.482

2.  Respiratory Motion, Anterior Heart Displacement and Heart Dosimetry: Comparison Between Prone (Pr) and Supine (Su) Whole Breast Irradiation.

Authors:  Ferenc Lakosi; Akos Gulyban; Levente Janvary; Selma Ben-Mustapha Simoni; Nicolas Jansen; Laurence Seidel; Arpad Kovacs; Peter Vavassis; Philippe Coucke
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.201

3.  Breast cancer: risk of heart disease after radiotherapy-cause for concern.

Authors:  Timothy M Zagar; Lawrence B Marks
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 66.675

4.  Setup accuracy for prone and supine whole breast irradiation.

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

5.  Incidental dose to coronary arteries is higher in prone than in supine whole breast irradiation. A dosimetric comparison in adjuvant radiotherapy of early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Florian Würschmidt; Solveigh Stoltenberg; Matthias Kretschmer; Cordula Petersen
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Prone breast intensity modulated radiation therapy: 5-year results.

Authors:  Etin-Osa O Osa; Keith DeWyngaert; Daniel Roses; James Speyer; Amber Guth; Deborah Axelrod; Maria Fenton Kerimian; Judith D Goldberg; Silvia C Formenti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone.

Authors:  Hui Lin; Tianyu Liu; Chengyu Shi; Saskia Petillion; Isabelle Kindts; Caroline Weltens; Tom Depuydt; Yulin Song; Ziad Saleh; Xie George Xu; Xiaoli Tang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 8.  Cardiac Toxicity after Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer: Myths and Facts.

Authors:  Mirko Nitsche; René Pahl; Karen Huber; Kirsten Eilf; Juergen Dunst
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 9.  Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Toxicity: Mechanisms, Prevention, and Treatment.

Authors:  Johan Spetz; Javid Moslehi; Kristopher Sarosiek
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-20

Review 10.  Cardiotoxicity of Radiation Therapy: Mechanisms, Management, and Mitigation.

Authors:  P Ell; J M Martin; D A Cehic; D T M Ngo; A L Sverdlov
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2021-06-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.