| Literature DB >> 23621896 |
Yu Sun Lee1, Kyoung Ju Kim, Seung Do Ahn, Eun Kyung Choi, Jong Hoon Kim, Sang-Wook Lee, Si Yeol Song, Sang Min Yoon, Young Seok Kim, Jin-Hong Park, Byung Chul Cho, Su Ssan Kim.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the utility of the preoperative PET-CT using deformable image registration (DIR) in the treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer and to find appropriate radiotherapy technique for further adequate treatment of axillary nodal area.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23621896 PMCID: PMC3698158 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-104
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patient characteristics
| Involved LN | |
| Level II only | 28 (43%) |
| Level II + III | 16 (25%) |
| Level II + III + SCN | 14 (21%) |
| Level III + SCN | 2 (3%) |
| Level II + SCN | 5 (8%) |
| Biopsy positive, preoperatively | |
| Yes | 52 (90%) |
| No | 6 (10%) |
| Clinical Stage | |
| IIB | 2 (3%) |
| IIIA | 18 (28%) |
| IIIB | 6 (9%) |
| IIIC | 39 (60%) |
| The type of axillary surgery | |
| Sentinel node biopsy only | 11 (16.9%) |
| ALND (level I + II) | 36 (55.4%) |
| ALND (level I + II + III) | 12 (18.5%) |
| ALND (level I + II) + SCND | 6 (9.2%) |
Figure 1Normal organs were contoured on simulation CT images. Axillary vessels, clavicular head, coracoids process and humeral head were delineated.
Figure 2Representative images after deformable image registration. A: Simulation CT images. B: PET-CT images. C: Fusion images of deformed PET and simulation CT.
Figure 3Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) image of each field. A: Anterior field. It is the historically designed field. B: Tangential fields. They also follow the historically designed fields. C: Modified anterior field. It is 1 cm larger below the junction compared to the historical field. D: Posterior axillary boost beam. Sky blue line represents the area received the dose below 90% of the prescribed dose.
Mean DSC and the distance between the COMs of structures
| DSC* | | | | | |
| mean ± 95% CI† | 0.43 ± 0.15 | 0.39 ± 0.20 | 0.85 ± 0.10 | 0.72 ± 0.20 | 0.77 ± 0.20 |
| Distance between the COMs‡ (lateral direction) (mm) | | | | | |
| mean ± 95% CI | 11.0 ±7.6 | 18.4 ± 11.8 | 2.8 ± 3.7 | 1.4 ± 3.6 | 4.8 ± 17.0 |
| Distance between the COMs (sup.-inf. direction) (mm) | | | | | |
| mean ± 95% CI | 3.7 ± 2.2 | 3.7 ± 3.0 | 2.7 ± 4.8 | 2.4 ± 5.2 | 5.9 ± 17.5 |
| Distance between the COMs (ant.-post. direction) (mm) | | | | | |
| mean ± 95% CI | 3.7 ± 2.9 | 5.2 ± 4.1 | 1.7 ± 2. | 1.9 ± 2.7 | 4.5 ± 7.4 |
| Distance between the COMs (3 dimensional) (mm) | | | | | |
| mean ± 95% CI | 13.0 ± 7.1 | 20.2 ± 11.2 | 4.4 ± 6.3 | 3.7 ± 6.7 | 9.5 ± 25.0 |
* Dice similarity coefficient, † Confidence interval, ‡ Centers of mass.
Figure 4The graphs show Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and the distance between the Centers of mass (COMs) of structures. The error bars represent 95% confidence interval.
Correlation coefficient between the variables
| BMI* and †DSC of axillary a. | 0.74 | 0.56 |
| BMI and distance between the COMs‡(axillary a.) | 0.00 | 0.98 |
| Level II volume and DSC of axillary a. | −0.11 | 0.41 |
| Level II volume and distance between the COMs (axillary a.) | 0.24 | 0.06 |
| Initial weight and DSC of axillary a. | 0.01 | 0.97 |
| Initial weight and distance between the COMs (axillary a.) | 0.18 | 0.14 |
| Weight loss and DSC of axillary a. | −0.18 | 0.16 |
| Weight loss and distance between the COMs (axillary a.) | 0.24 | 0.06 |
| BMI and DSC of axillary v. | 0.05 | 0.70 |
| BMI and distance between the COMs (axillary v.) | −0.22 | 0.08 |
| Level II volume and DSC of axillary v. | −0.17 | 0.18 |
| Level II volume and distance between the COMs (axillary v.) | 0.16 | 0.21 |
| Initial weight and DSC of axillary v. | −0.04 | 0.73 |
| Initial weight and distance between the COMs (axillary v.) | −0.09 | 0.49 |
| Weight loss and DSC of axillary v. | −0.16 | 0.19 |
| Weight loss and distance between the COMs (axillary v.) | 0.10 | 0.43 |
* Body mass index, † Dice similarity coefficient, ‡ Centers of mass.
Figure 5Location of level II axillary lymph node. A. The distribution of the maximal length from the axillary vessels to the level II lymph node. B. The distribution of the maximal depth from surface to level II lymph node.
Differences in the dose distribution between the two plans
| 58.0 ± 1.33 | 56.4 ± 1.49 | <0.01 | |
| | | | |
| Mean D95 | 45.4 ± 3.3 | 46.7 ± 2.7 | < 0.01 |
| Mean V95 | 57.7 ± 36.9 | 70.0 ± 33.6 | <0.01 |
| Mean dose | 48.3 ± 3.0 | 49.0 ± 2.2 | <0.01 |
| | | | |
| Mean D95 | 51.3 ± 2.4 | 50.6 ± 2.1 | <0.01 |
| MeanV95 | 96.8 ± 14.7 | 97.9 ± 8.4 | 0.35 |
| Mean dose | 52.5 ± 1.9 | 51.9 ± 1.5 | <0.01 |
| | | | |
| V5 | 38.6 ± 8.4 | 40.9 ± 8.3 | <0.01 |
| V10 | 31.4 ± 7.7 | 31.8 ± 7.7 | <0.01 |
| V20 | 27.8 ± 7.5 | 28.0 ± 7.5 | <0.01 |
| Mean dose | 14.3 ± 3.4 | 14.3 ± 3.4 | 0.22 |
Figure 6Representative dose distribution and dose volume histogram (DVH) of axillary lymph nodes and ipsilateral lung in both plans. A. Dose distribution in the historical plan at the level of level II lymph node. Orange colored area is initially involved level II lymph node area. Green line shows the area received 96% of the prescribed dose. B. Dose distribution in the modified plan. C. DVH of axillary LNs and ipsilateral lung in the two plans. The dose irradiated to the level II lymph node increased in the modified plan. The dose to level III lymph node in the modified plan was lower than in the historical plan but the doses were more than prescribed dose in both plans. The maximum dose decreased in the modified plan.