AIM: To evaluate the resources and techniques used in the irradiation of patients with breast cancer after lumpectomy or mastectomy and the status of implementation of new techniques and therapeutic schedules in our country. BACKGROUND: The demand for cancer care has increased among the Spanish population, as long as cancer treatment innovations have proliferated. Radiation therapy in breast cancer has evolved exponentially in recent years with the implementation of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image guided radiotherapy and hypofractionation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An original survey questionnaire was sent to institutions participating in the SEOR-Mama group (GEORM). In total, the standards of practice in 969 patients with breast cancer after surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: The response rate was 70% (28/40 centers). In 98.5% of cases 3D conformal treatment was used. All the institutions employed CT-based planning treatment. Boost was performed in 56.4% of patients: electrons in 59.8%, photons in 23.7% and HDR brachytherapy in 8.8%. Fractionation was standard in 93.1% of patients. Supine position was the most frequent. Only 3 centers used prone position. The common organs of risk delimited were: homolateral lung (80.8%) and heart (80.8%). In 84% histograms were used. An 80.8% of the centers used isocentric technique. In 62.5% asymmetric fields were employed. CTV was delimited in 46.2%, PTV in 65% and both in 38.5%. A 65% of the centers checked with portal films. IMRT and hypofractionation were used in 1% and in 5.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: In most of centers, 3D conformal treatment and CT-based planning treatment were used. IMRT and hypofractionation are currently poorly implemented in Spain.
AIM: To evaluate the resources and techniques used in the irradiation of patients with breast cancer after lumpectomy or mastectomy and the status of implementation of new techniques and therapeutic schedules in our country. BACKGROUND: The demand for cancer care has increased among the Spanish population, as long as cancer treatment innovations have proliferated. Radiation therapy in breast cancer has evolved exponentially in recent years with the implementation of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image guided radiotherapy and hypofractionation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An original survey questionnaire was sent to institutions participating in the SEOR-Mama group (GEORM). In total, the standards of practice in 969 patients with breast cancer after surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: The response rate was 70% (28/40 centers). In 98.5% of cases 3D conformal treatment was used. All the institutions employed CT-based planning treatment. Boost was performed in 56.4% of patients: electrons in 59.8%, photons in 23.7% and HDR brachytherapy in 8.8%. Fractionation was standard in 93.1% of patients. Supine position was the most frequent. Only 3 centers used prone position. The common organs of risk delimited were: homolateral lung (80.8%) and heart (80.8%). In 84% histograms were used. An 80.8% of the centers used isocentric technique. In 62.5% asymmetric fields were employed. CTV was delimited in 46.2%, PTV in 65% and both in 38.5%. A 65% of the centers checked with portal films. IMRT and hypofractionation were used in 1% and in 5.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: In most of centers, 3D conformal treatment and CT-based planning treatment were used. IMRT and hypofractionation are currently poorly implemented in Spain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Radiotherapy technique; Spain Survey
Authors: M Algara López; X Sanz Latiesas; P Foro Arnalot; M Lacruz Bassols; A Reig Castillejo; J Lozano Galán; I Membrive Conejo; J Quera Jordana; N Rodríguez de Dios Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Timothy Whelan; Robert MacKenzie; Jim Julian; Mark Levine; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Barbara Lada; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ethan Laukkanen; Sunil Gulavita; Veronique Benk; Barbara Szechtman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hae Jin Park; Do Hoon Oh; Kyung Hwan Shin; Jin Ho Kim; Doo Ho Choi; Won Park; Chang-Ok Suh; Yong Bae Kim; Seung Do Ahn; Su Ssan Kim Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 3.588