Beata Czeremszyńska1,2, Stanisław Drozda3, Michał Górzyński1, Lucyna Kępka1,2. 1. Independent Public Health Care Facility of the Ministry of the Interior and Warmian & Masurian Oncology Center, Radiotherapy Department, Olsztyn, Poland. 2. Military Institute of Medicine, Warsaw, Poland. 3. University of Warmia and Mazury, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Olsztyn, Poland.
Abstract
AIM: To assess prospectively which patients with left breast cancer have the dosimetric benefit from the use of deep-inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy (DIBH-RT). BACKGROUND: Improvement in selection of patients for DIBH-RT would spare time of radiotherapy staff by removing the need for preparation of two comparative treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients qualified for whole left breast irradiation underwent breath-hold training and their free-breathing (FB) and DIBH planning-CT were included in the analysis of dosimetric outcome. Mean heart dose (MHD), heart V20 Gy (V20Heart), maximum dose to LAD (LADmax), V20 for left lung (V20L.lung) were recorded from FB and DIBH plans and the differences (Δ) of these values were calculated. If relative improvement of at least 20% for any evaluated dosimetric parameter was found for the DIBH-RT, this plan was selected for treatment. Correlations of Δ of dosimetric parameters with patient-related parameters (BMI, age, PTV, cardiac contact distance [CCD], lung volume at FB) were sought. RESULTS: In 30 of 31 patients, a predefined reduction in evaluated parameters was achieved. CCD, BMI correlated positively with ΔMHD, ΔV20Heart, ΔLADmax; PTV with ΔMHD and ΔV20Heart (p < 0.05; AUC > 0.6); Lung volume correlated negatively with ΔLADmax, ΔMHD and ΔV20Heart. No specific thresholds for the lack of predefined improvement of any dosimetric parameters was identified in ROC analysis. 19/30 (63%) patients with dosimetric benefit completed their RT with DIBH. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a strong correlation between patient-related and dosimetric parameters, we cannot use the anatomical characteristics' thresholds to select patients for whom DIBH-RT will not be considered.
AIM: To assess prospectively which patients with left breast cancer have the dosimetric benefit from the use of deep-inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy (DIBH-RT). BACKGROUND: Improvement in selection of patients for DIBH-RT would spare time of radiotherapy staff by removing the need for preparation of two comparative treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients qualified for whole left breast irradiation underwent breath-hold training and their free-breathing (FB) and DIBH planning-CT were included in the analysis of dosimetric outcome. Mean heart dose (MHD), heart V20 Gy (V20Heart), maximum dose to LAD (LADmax), V20 for left lung (V20L.lung) were recorded from FB and DIBH plans and the differences (Δ) of these values were calculated. If relative improvement of at least 20% for any evaluated dosimetric parameter was found for the DIBH-RT, this plan was selected for treatment. Correlations of Δ of dosimetric parameters with patient-related parameters (BMI, age, PTV, cardiac contact distance [CCD], lung volume at FB) were sought. RESULTS: In 30 of 31 patients, a predefined reduction in evaluated parameters was achieved. CCD, BMI correlated positively with ΔMHD, ΔV20Heart, ΔLADmax; PTV with ΔMHD and ΔV20Heart (p < 0.05; AUC > 0.6); Lung volume correlated negatively with ΔLADmax, ΔMHD and ΔV20Heart. No specific thresholds for the lack of predefined improvement of any dosimetric parameters was identified in ROC analysis. 19/30 (63%) patients with dosimetric benefit completed their RT with DIBH. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a strong correlation between patient-related and dosimetric parameters, we cannot use the anatomical characteristics' thresholds to select patients for whom DIBH-RT will not be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Deep inspiration breath hold; Heart-sparing; Whole breast irradiation
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: Gerben R Borst; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Suzanne den Hollander; Anja Betgen; Peter Remeijer; Aline van Giersbergen; Nicola S Russell; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Harry Bartelink; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David P Gierga; Julie C Turcotte; Gregory C Sharp; Daniel E Sedlacek; Christopher R Cotter; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Frederick R Bartlett; Ruth M Colgan; Karen Carr; Ellen M Donovan; Helen A McNair; Imogen Locke; Philip M Evans; Joanne S Haviland; John R Yarnold; Anna M Kirby Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Vincent M Remouchamps; Frank A Vicini; Michael B Sharpe; Larry L Kestin; Alvaro A Martinez; John W Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patricia Browne; Nakia-Rae Beaton; Harish Sharma; Sharon Watson; G Tao Mai; Jennifer Harvey; Anne Bernard; Elizabeth Brown; Catriona Hargrave; Margot Lehman Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2020-07-05