Krishan R Jethwa1, Mohamed M Kahila1, Thomas J Whitaker1, William S Harmsen2, Kimberly S Corbin1, Sean S Park1, Elizabeth S Yan1, Valerie Lemaine3, Judy C Boughey4, Robert W Mutter5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. mutter.robert@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increasingly, women are choosing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy. Reports have indicated IBR may compromise post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). We investigated the impact of IBR on timing of PMRT, target coverage, and doses to organs at risk in a modern radiotherapy practice using advanced planning techniques. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2015, PMRT was delivered to 116 patients (66 mastectomy alone, 50 IBR). PMRT was delivered with a median dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Left-sided patients were treated in breath-hold under image guidance. Differences in dosimetric parameters and time to the initiation of PMRT were assessed between patients with and without reconstruction. RESULTS: Reconstructed patients were younger and had lower clinical stage disease. Reconstruction did not significantly increase the mean time to PMRT initiation (51 days reconstructed vs. 45 days non-reconstructed, p = 0.14) or the number of patients who initiated PMRT within 12 weeks of the last therapeutic intervention (48/50 [96.0] vs. 61/66 [92.4%], p = 0.41). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients in whom the internal mammary lymph nodes (IMNs) were targeted (72 vs. 80%, p = 0.29) or in IMN target coverage (mean IMN V40.5 Gy 92.6 vs. 94.1%, p = 0.62). Reconstruction did not significantly affect the mean ipsilateral lung V20 (25.4 vs. 26.4%, p = 0.37) or the mean heart dose (2.2 vs. 2.1 Gy, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: In a specialized breast multidisciplinary practice, immediate breast reconstruction did not significantly delay PMRT, compromise target coverage, or increase dose to organs at risk.
PURPOSE: Increasingly, women are choosing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy. Reports have indicated IBR may compromise post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). We investigated the impact of IBR on timing of PMRT, target coverage, and doses to organs at risk in a modern radiotherapy practice using advanced planning techniques. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2015, PMRT was delivered to 116 patients (66 mastectomy alone, 50 IBR). PMRT was delivered with a median dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Left-sided patients were treated in breath-hold under image guidance. Differences in dosimetric parameters and time to the initiation of PMRT were assessed between patients with and without reconstruction. RESULTS: Reconstructed patients were younger and had lower clinical stage disease. Reconstruction did not significantly increase the mean time to PMRT initiation (51 days reconstructed vs. 45 days non-reconstructed, p = 0.14) or the number of patients who initiated PMRT within 12 weeks of the last therapeutic intervention (48/50 [96.0] vs. 61/66 [92.4%], p = 0.41). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients in whom the internal mammary lymph nodes (IMNs) were targeted (72 vs. 80%, p = 0.29) or in IMN target coverage (mean IMN V40.5 Gy 92.6 vs. 94.1%, p = 0.62). Reconstruction did not significantly affect the mean ipsilateral lung V20 (25.4 vs. 26.4%, p = 0.37) or the mean heart dose (2.2 vs. 2.1 Gy, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: In a specialized breast multidisciplinary practice, immediate breast reconstruction did not significantly delay PMRT, compromise target coverage, or increase dose to organs at risk.
Authors: Kelly C Gast; Paul V Viscuse; Somaira Nowsheen; Tufia C Haddad; Robert W Mutter; Andrea E Wahner Hendrickson; Fergus J Couch; Kathryn J Ruddy Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Nalee Kim; Haeyoung Kim; Won Park; Doo Ho Choi; Won Kyung Cho; Seok Jin Nam; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Won Kim; Jonghan Yu; Sei Kyung Lee; Byung-Joon Jeon; Jai Kyong Pyon; Goo-Hyun Mun; Tae Gyu Kim Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sung Mi Jung; Byung-Joon Jeon; Jinsun Woo; Jai Min Ryu; Se Kyung Lee; Byung-Joo Chae; Jonghan Yu; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam; Jai-Kyong Pyon; Goo-Hyun Mun; Sa Ik Bang; Jeong Eon Lee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Robert W Mutter; J Isabelle Choi; Rachel B Jimenez; Youlia M Kirova; Marcio Fagundes; Bruce G Haffty; Richard A Amos; Julie A Bradley; Peter Y Chen; Xuanfeng Ding; Antoinette M Carr; Leslie M Taylor; Mark Pankuch; Raymond B Mailhot Vega; Alice Y Ho; Petra Witt Nyström; Lisa A McGee; James J Urbanic; Oren Cahlon; John H Maduro; Shannon M MacDonald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 8.013