Line B Stick1, Jen Yu2, Maja V Maraldo3, Marianne C Aznar4, Anders N Pedersen3, Søren M Bentzen5, Ivan R Vogelius3. 1. Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Niels Bohr Institute, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: line.bjerregaard.stick@regionh.dk. 2. Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 5. Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to perform joint estimation of the risk of recurrence caused by inadequate radiation dose coverage of lymph node targets and the risk of cardiac toxicity caused by radiation exposure to the heart. Delivered photon plans are compared with realistic proton plans, thereby providing evidence-based estimates of the heterogeneity of treatment effects in consecutive cases for the 2 radiation treatment modalities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-one patients referred for postlumpectomy comprehensive nodal photon irradiation for left-sided breast cancer were included. Comparative proton plans were optimized by a spot scanning technique with single-field optimization from 2 en face beams. Cardiotoxicity risk was estimated with the model of Darby et al, and risk of recurrence following a compromise of lymph node coverage was estimated by a linear dose-response model fitted to the recurrence data from the recently published EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) 22922/10925 and NCIC-CTG (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group) MA.20 randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Excess absolute risk of cardiac morbidity was small with photon therapy at an attained age of 80 years, with median values of 1.0% (range, 0.2%-2.9%) and 0.5% (range, 0.03%-1.0%) with and without cardiac risk factors, respectively, but even lower with proton therapy (0.13% [range, 0.02%-0.5%] and 0.06% [range, 0.004%-0.3%], respectively). The median estimated excess absolute risk of breast cancer recurrence after 10 years was 0.10% (range, 0.0%-0.9%) with photons and 0.02% (range, 0.0%-0.07%) with protons. The association between age of the patient and benefit from proton therapy was weak, almost non-existing (Spearman rank correlations of -0.15 and -0.30 with and without cardiac risk factors, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Modern photon therapy yields limited risk of cardiac toxicity in most patients, but proton therapy can reduce the predicted risk of cardiac toxicity by up to 2.9% and the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 0.9% in individual patients. Predicted benefit correlates weakly with age. Combined assessment of the risk from cardiac exposure and inadequate target coverage is desirable for rational consideration of competing photon and proton therapy plans.
PURPOSE: The study aims to perform joint estimation of the risk of recurrence caused by inadequate radiation dose coverage of lymph node targets and the risk of cardiac toxicity caused by radiation exposure to the heart. Delivered photon plans are compared with realistic proton plans, thereby providing evidence-based estimates of the heterogeneity of treatment effects in consecutive cases for the 2 radiation treatment modalities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-one patients referred for postlumpectomy comprehensive nodal photon irradiation for left-sided breast cancer were included. Comparative proton plans were optimized by a spot scanning technique with single-field optimization from 2 en face beams. Cardiotoxicity risk was estimated with the model of Darby et al, and risk of recurrence following a compromise of lymph node coverage was estimated by a linear dose-response model fitted to the recurrence data from the recently published EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) 22922/10925 and NCIC-CTG (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group) MA.20 randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Excess absolute risk of cardiac morbidity was small with photon therapy at an attained age of 80 years, with median values of 1.0% (range, 0.2%-2.9%) and 0.5% (range, 0.03%-1.0%) with and without cardiac risk factors, respectively, but even lower with proton therapy (0.13% [range, 0.02%-0.5%] and 0.06% [range, 0.004%-0.3%], respectively). The median estimated excess absolute risk of breast cancer recurrence after 10 years was 0.10% (range, 0.0%-0.9%) with photons and 0.02% (range, 0.0%-0.07%) with protons. The association between age of the patient and benefit from proton therapy was weak, almost non-existing (Spearman rank correlations of -0.15 and -0.30 with and without cardiac risk factors, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Modern photon therapy yields limited risk of cardiac toxicity in most patients, but proton therapy can reduce the predicted risk of cardiac toxicity by up to 2.9% and the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 0.9% in individual patients. Predicted benefit correlates weakly with age. Combined assessment of the risk from cardiac exposure and inadequate target coverage is desirable for rational consideration of competing photon and proton therapy plans.
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: Raymond B Mailhot Vega; Omar Ishaq; Ann Raldow; Carmen A Perez; Rachel Jimenez; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie; Marc Bussiere; Alphonse Taghian; David J Sher; Shannon M MacDonald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Timothy J Whelan; Ivo A Olivotto; Wendy R Parulekar; Ida Ackerman; Boon H Chua; Abdenour Nabid; Katherine A Vallis; Julia R White; Pierre Rousseau; Andre Fortin; Lori J Pierce; Lee Manchul; Susan Chafe; Maureen C Nolan; Peter Craighead; Julie Bowen; David R McCready; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Gelmon; Yvonne Murray; Judy-Anne W Chapman; Bingshu E Chen; Mark N Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip M Poortmans; Sandra Collette; Carine Kirkove; Erik Van Limbergen; Volker Budach; Henk Struikmans; Laurence Collette; Alain Fourquet; Philippe Maingon; Mariacarla Valli; Karin De Winter; Simone Marnitz; Isabelle Barillot; Luciano Scandolaro; Ernest Vonk; Carla Rodenhuis; Hugo Marsiglia; Nicola Weidner; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Christoph Glanzmann; Abraham Kuten; Rodrigo Arriagada; Harry Bartelink; Walter Van den Bogaert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mette H Nielsen; Martin Berg; Anders N Pedersen; Karen Andersen; Vladimir Glavicic; Erik H Jakobsen; Ingelise Jensen; Mirjana Josipovic; Ebbe L Lorenzen; Hanne M Nielsen; Lars Stenbygaard; Mette S Thomsen; Susanne Vallentin; Sune Zimmermann; Birgitte V Offersen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Shannon M MacDonald; Sagar A Patel; Shea Hickey; Michelle Specht; Steven J Isakoff; Michele Gadd; Barbara L Smith; Beow Y Yeap; Judith Adams; Thomas F Delaney; Hanne Kooy; Hsiao-Ming Lu; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mudit Chowdhary; Anna Lee; Sarah Gao; Dian Wang; Parul N Barry; Roberto Diaz; Neeti R Bagadiya; Henry S Park; James B Yu; Lynn D Wilson; Meena S Moran; Susan A Higgins; Christin A Knowlton; Kirtesh R Patel Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 6.244