PURPOSE: To assess the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on postmastectomy radiation (PMRT) using dose-volume histogram (DVH) data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred forty-seven women underwent PMRT at our center, 196 with implant reconstruction and 51 without reconstruction. Patients with reconstruction were treated with tangential photons, and patients without reconstruction were treated with en-face electron fields and customized bolus. Twenty percent of patients received internal mammary node (IMN) treatment. The DVH data were compared between groups. Ipsilateral lung parameters included V20 (% volume receiving 20 Gy), V40 (% volume receiving 40 Gy), mean dose, and maximum dose. Heart parameters included V25 (% volume receiving 25 Gy), mean dose, and maximum dose. IMN coverage was assessed when applicable. Chest wall coverage was assessed in patients with reconstruction. Propensity-matched analysis adjusted for potential confounders of laterality and IMN treatment. RESULTS: Reconstruction was associated with lower lung V20, mean dose, and maximum dose compared with no reconstruction (all P<.0001). These associations persisted on propensity-matched analysis (all P<.0001). Heart doses were similar between groups (P=NS). Ninety percent of patients with reconstruction had excellent chest wall coverage (D95 >98%). IMN coverage was superior in patients with reconstruction (D95 >92.0 vs 75.7%, P<.001). IMN treatment significantly increased lung and heart parameters in patients with reconstruction (all P<.05) but minimally affected those without reconstruction (all P>.05). Among IMN-treated patients, only lower lung V20 in those without reconstruction persisted (P=.022), and mean and maximum heart doses were higher than in patients without reconstruction (P=.006, P=.015, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implant reconstruction does not compromise the technical quality of PMRT when the IMNs are untreated. Treatment technique, not reconstruction, is the primary determinant of target coverage and normal tissue doses. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on postmastectomy radiation (PMRT) using dose-volume histogram (DVH) data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred forty-seven women underwent PMRT at our center, 196 with implant reconstruction and 51 without reconstruction. Patients with reconstruction were treated with tangential photons, and patients without reconstruction were treated with en-face electron fields and customized bolus. Twenty percent of patients received internal mammary node (IMN) treatment. The DVH data were compared between groups. Ipsilateral lung parameters included V20 (% volume receiving 20 Gy), V40 (% volume receiving 40 Gy), mean dose, and maximum dose. Heart parameters included V25 (% volume receiving 25 Gy), mean dose, and maximum dose. IMN coverage was assessed when applicable. Chest wall coverage was assessed in patients with reconstruction. Propensity-matched analysis adjusted for potential confounders of laterality and IMN treatment. RESULTS: Reconstruction was associated with lower lung V20, mean dose, and maximum dose compared with no reconstruction (all P<.0001). These associations persisted on propensity-matched analysis (all P<.0001). Heart doses were similar between groups (P=NS). Ninety percent of patients with reconstruction had excellent chest wall coverage (D95 >98%). IMN coverage was superior in patients with reconstruction (D95 >92.0 vs 75.7%, P<.001). IMN treatment significantly increased lung and heart parameters in patients with reconstruction (all P<.05) but minimally affected those without reconstruction (all P>.05). Among IMN-treated patients, only lower lung V20 in those without reconstruction persisted (P=.022), and mean and maximum heart doses were higher than in patients without reconstruction (P=.006, P=.015, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implant reconstruction does not compromise the technical quality of PMRT when the IMNs are untreated. Treatment technique, not reconstruction, is the primary determinant of target coverage and normal tissue doses. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Jessica Billig; Reshma Jagsi; Ji Qi; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Andrea L Pusic; Edward Buchel; Edwin G Wilkins; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: John J Cuaron; Brian Chon; Henry Tsai; Anuj Goenka; David DeBlois; Alice Ho; Simon Powell; Eugen Hug; Oren Cahlon Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher J Anker; Richard V Hymas; Ravinder Ahluwalia; Kristine E Kokeny; Vilija Avizonis; Kenneth M Boucher; Leigh A Neumayer; Jayant P Agarwal Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Nalee Kim; Haeyoung Kim; Won Park; Doo Ho Choi; Won Kyung Cho; Seok Jin Nam; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Won Kim; Jonghan Yu; Sei Kyung Lee; Byung-Joon Jeon; Jai Kyong Pyon; Goo-Hyun Mun; Tae Gyu Kim Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Won Sup Yoon; Chai Hong Rim; Dae Sik Yang; Jung Ae Lee; Gil Soo Son; Young Woo Chang; Sang Uk Woo; Deok-Woo Kim; Eun-Sang Dhong Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-12
Authors: Vishruta A Dumane; Kitwadee Saksornchai; Ying Zhou; Linda Hong; Simon Powell; Alice Y Ho Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 3.481