PURPOSE: To provide dosimetric data for an epidemiologic study on the risk of second primary esophageal cancer among breast cancer survivors, by reconstructing the radiation dose incidentally delivered to the esophagus of 414 women treated with radiation therapy for breast cancer during 1943-1996 in North America and Europe. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We abstracted the radiation therapy treatment parameters from each patient's radiation therapy record. Treatment fields included direct chest wall (37% of patients), medial and lateral tangentials (45%), supraclavicular (SCV, 64%), internal mammary (IM, 44%), SCV and IM together (16%), axillary (52%), and breast/chest wall boosts (7%). The beam types used were (60)Co (45% of fields), orthovoltage (33%), megavoltage photons (11%), and electrons (10%). The population median prescribed dose to the target volume ranged from 21 Gy to 40 Gy. We reconstructed the doses over the length of the esophagus using abstracted patient data, water phantom measurements, and a computational model of the human body. RESULTS: Fields that treated the SCV and/or IM lymph nodes were used for 85% of the patients and delivered the highest doses within 3 regions of the esophagus: cervical (population median 38 Gy), upper thoracic (32 Gy), and middle thoracic (25 Gy). Other fields (direct chest wall, tangential, and axillary) contributed substantially lower doses (approximately 2 Gy). The cervical to middle thoracic esophagus received the highest dose because of its close proximity to the SCV and IM fields and less overlying tissue in that part of the chest. The location of the SCV field border relative to the midline was one of the most important determinants of the dose to the esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients in this study received relatively high incidental radiation therapy doses to the esophagus when the SCV and/or IM lymph nodes were treated, whereas direct chest wall, tangentials, and axillary fields contributed lower doses. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To provide dosimetric data for an epidemiologic study on the risk of second primary esophageal cancer among breast cancer survivors, by reconstructing the radiation dose incidentally delivered to the esophagus of 414 women treated with radiation therapy for breast cancer during 1943-1996 in North America and Europe. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We abstracted the radiation therapy treatment parameters from each patient's radiation therapy record. Treatment fields included direct chest wall (37% of patients), medial and lateral tangentials (45%), supraclavicular (SCV, 64%), internal mammary (IM, 44%), SCV and IM together (16%), axillary (52%), and breast/chest wall boosts (7%). The beam types used were (60)Co (45% of fields), orthovoltage (33%), megavoltage photons (11%), and electrons (10%). The population median prescribed dose to the target volume ranged from 21 Gy to 40 Gy. We reconstructed the doses over the length of the esophagus using abstracted patient data, water phantom measurements, and a computational model of the human body. RESULTS: Fields that treated the SCV and/or IM lymph nodes were used for 85% of the patients and delivered the highest doses within 3 regions of the esophagus: cervical (population median 38 Gy), upper thoracic (32 Gy), and middle thoracic (25 Gy). Other fields (direct chest wall, tangential, and axillary) contributed substantially lower doses (approximately 2 Gy). The cervical to middle thoracic esophagus received the highest dose because of its close proximity to the SCV and IM fields and less overlying tissue in that part of the chest. The location of the SCV field border relative to the midline was one of the most important determinants of the dose to the esophagus. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancerpatients in this study received relatively high incidental radiation therapy doses to the esophagus when the SCV and/or IM lymph nodes were treated, whereas direct chest wall, tangentials, and axillary fields contributed lower doses. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Lois B Travis; Andrea K Ng; James M Allan; Ching-Hon Pui; Ann R Kennedy; X George Xu; James A Purdy; Kimberly Applegate; Joachim Yahalom; Louis S Constine; Ethel S Gilbert; John D Boice Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L M Morton; E S Gilbert; P Hall; M Andersson; H Joensuu; L Vaalavirta; G M Dores; M Stovall; E J Holowaty; C F Lynch; R E Curtis; S A Smith; R A Kleinerman; M Kaijser; H H Storm; E Pukkala; R E Weathers; M S Linet; P Rajaraman; J F Fraumeni; L M Brown; F E van Leeuwen; S D Fossa; T B Johannesen; F Langmark; S Lamart; L B Travis; B M P Aleman Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Michael Schaapveld; Otto Visser; Marieke J Louwman; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Pax H B Willemse; Renée Otter; Winette T A van der Graaf; Jan-Willem W Coebergh; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Ziyuan Wang; Marco Virgolin; Peter A N Bosman; Koen F Crama; Brian V Balgobind; Arjan Bel; Tanja Alderliesten Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Stephanie Lamart; Rebecca Imran; Steven L Simon; Kazutaka Doi; Lindsay M Morton; Rochelle E Curtis; Choonik Lee; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Roberto Maass-Moreno; Clara C Chen; Millie Whatley; Donald L Miller; Karel Pacak; Choonsik Lee Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 3.609