PURPOSE: Whole breast irradiation with deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique among left-sided breast cancer patients significantly reduces cardiac irradiation; however, a potential disadvantage is increased incidental irradiation of the contralateral breast. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Contralateral breast dose (CBD) was calculated by comparing 400 treatment plans of 200 left-sided breast cancer patients whose tangential fields had been planned on gated and nongated CT data sets. Various anatomic and field parameters were analyzed for their impact on CBD. For a subgroup of patients (aged ≤45 years) second cancer risk in the contralateral breast (CB) was modeled by applying the linear quadratic model, compound models, and compound models considering dose-volume information (DVH). RESULTS: The mean CBD was significantly higher in DIBH with 0.69 Gy compared with 0.65 Gy in normal breathing (P=.01). The greatest impact on CBD was due to a shift of the inner field margin toward the CB in DIBH (mean 0.4 cm; range, 0-2), followed by field size in magnitude. Calculation with different risk models for CBC revealed values of excess relative risk/Gy ranging from 0.48-0.65 vs 0.46-0.61 for DIBH vs normal breathing, respectively. CONCLUSION: Contralateral breast dose, although within a low dose range, was mildly but significantly increased in 200 treatment plans generated under gated conditions, predominately due to a shift in the medial field margin. Risk modeling for CBC among women aged ≤45 years also pointed to a higher risk when comparing DIBH with normal breathing. This risk, however, was substantially lower in the model considering DVH information. We think that clinical decisions should not be affected by this small increase in CBD with DIBH because DIBH is effective in reducing the dose to the heart in all patients.
PURPOSE: Whole breast irradiation with deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique among left-sided breast cancerpatients significantly reduces cardiac irradiation; however, a potential disadvantage is increased incidental irradiation of the contralateral breast. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Contralateral breast dose (CBD) was calculated by comparing 400 treatment plans of 200 left-sided breast cancerpatients whose tangential fields had been planned on gated and nongated CT data sets. Various anatomic and field parameters were analyzed for their impact on CBD. For a subgroup of patients (aged ≤45 years) second cancer risk in the contralateral breast (CB) was modeled by applying the linear quadratic model, compound models, and compound models considering dose-volume information (DVH). RESULTS: The mean CBD was significantly higher in DIBH with 0.69 Gy compared with 0.65 Gy in normal breathing (P=.01). The greatest impact on CBD was due to a shift of the inner field margin toward the CB in DIBH (mean 0.4 cm; range, 0-2), followed by field size in magnitude. Calculation with different risk models for CBC revealed values of excess relative risk/Gy ranging from 0.48-0.65 vs 0.46-0.61 for DIBH vs normal breathing, respectively. CONCLUSION: Contralateral breast dose, although within a low dose range, was mildly but significantly increased in 200 treatment plans generated under gated conditions, predominately due to a shift in the medial field margin. Risk modeling for CBC among women aged ≤45 years also pointed to a higher risk when comparing DIBH with normal breathing. This risk, however, was substantially lower in the model considering DVH information. We think that clinical decisions should not be affected by this small increase in CBD with DIBH because DIBH is effective in reducing the dose to the heart in all patients.
Authors: Carolyn Taylor; Candace Correa; Frances K Duane; Marianne C Aznar; Stewart J Anderson; Jonas Bergh; David Dodwell; Marianne Ewertz; Richard Gray; Reshma Jagsi; Lori Pierce; Kathleen I Pritchard; Sandra Swain; Zhe Wang; Yaochen Wang; Tim Whelan; Richard Peto; Paul McGale Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Cole Robinson; Christopher L Nelson; Elizabeth S Bloom; Kelly D Kisling; Bryan E Mason; Gary D Fisher; Steven M Kirsner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Marc Vogel; Jonas Gade; Bernd Timm; Michaela Schürmann; Hendrik Auerbach; Frank Nüsken; Christian Rübe; Patrick Melchior; Yvonne Dzierma Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 5.738