PURPOSE: Adjacent tissues-in-beam (TIB) may receive substantial incidental doses within standard tangent fields during hypofractioned whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI). To characterize the impact of dose to TIB, we analyzed dosimetric parameters of TIB and associated acute toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plans prescribed to 40.5 Gy/15 fractions from 4/2016-1/2018 were evaluated. Structures of interest were contoured: (1) TIB: all tissues encompassed by plan 30% isodose lines, (2) breast, (3) non-breast TIB (nTIB): TIB minus contoured breast. Volumes of TIB, breast, and nTIB receiving 100%-107% of prescription dose (V100-V107) were calculated. Twelve patient- and physician-reported acute toxicities were prospectively collected weekly. Correlations between volumetric and dosimetric parameters were assessed. Uni- and multivariable logistic regressions evaluated toxicity grade changes as a function of TIB, breast, and nTIB V100-V107 (in cm3). RESULTS: We evaluated 137 plans. Breast volume was positively correlated with nTIB and nTIB V100 (rho = 0.52, rho = 0.30, respectively, both p < 0.001). V107 > 2 cm3 were noted in 14% of breast and 21% of nTIB volumes. On multivariable analyses, increasing breast and nTIB V100 significantly raised odds of grade 2+ dermatitis and burning/twinging pain, respectively; increasing nTIB V105 elevated odds of hyperpigmentation and burning pain; and increasing nTIB V107 raised odds of burning pain. Threshold volumes for >6-fold odds of developing burning pain were TIB V105 > 100 cm3 and V107 > 5 cm3. CONCLUSIONS: For HF-WBI, doses to nTIB over the prescription predicted acute toxicities independent of breast doses. These data support inclusion of TIB as a region of interest in treatment planning and protocol design.
PURPOSE: Adjacent tissues-in-beam (TIB) may receive substantial incidental doses within standard tangent fields during hypofractioned whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI). To characterize the impact of dose to TIB, we analyzed dosimetric parameters of TIB and associated acute toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plans prescribed to 40.5 Gy/15 fractions from 4/2016-1/2018 were evaluated. Structures of interest were contoured: (1) TIB: all tissues encompassed by plan 30% isodose lines, (2) breast, (3) non-breast TIB (nTIB): TIB minus contoured breast. Volumes of TIB, breast, and nTIB receiving 100%-107% of prescription dose (V100-V107) were calculated. Twelve patient- and physician-reported acute toxicities were prospectively collected weekly. Correlations between volumetric and dosimetric parameters were assessed. Uni- and multivariable logistic regressions evaluated toxicity grade changes as a function of TIB, breast, and nTIB V100-V107 (in cm3). RESULTS: We evaluated 137 plans. Breast volume was positively correlated with nTIB and nTIB V100 (rho = 0.52, rho = 0.30, respectively, both p < 0.001). V107 > 2 cm3 were noted in 14% of breast and 21% of nTIB volumes. On multivariable analyses, increasing breast and nTIB V100 significantly raised odds of grade 2+ dermatitis and burning/twinging pain, respectively; increasing nTIB V105 elevated odds of hyperpigmentation and burning pain; and increasing nTIB V107 raised odds of burning pain. Threshold volumes for >6-fold odds of developing burning pain were TIB V105 > 100 cm3 and V107 > 5 cm3. CONCLUSIONS: For HF-WBI, doses to nTIB over the prescription predicted acute toxicities independent of breast doses. These data support inclusion of TIB as a region of interest in treatment planning and protocol design.
Authors: C Aristei; F Chionne; A R Marsella; M Alessandro; A Rulli; A Lemmi; E Perrucci; P Latini Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Timothy J Whelan; Jean-Philippe Pignol; Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian; Robert MacKenzie; Sameer Parpia; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Julie Bowen; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ken Schneider; Sunil Gulavita; Carolyn Freeman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel R Reed; Skyler Karen Lindsley; Gary N Mann; Mary Austin-Seymour; Tammy Korssjoen; Benjamin O Anderson; Roger Moe Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Orecchia; A Huscher; M C Leonardi; R Gennari; V Galimberti; C Garibaldi; E Rondi; L C Bianchi; S Zurrida; S Franzetti Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Jennifer R Bellon; Rachel Blitzblau; Gary Freedman; Bruce Haffty; Carol Hahn; Francine Halberg; Karen Hoffman; Kathleen Horst; Jean Moran; Caroline Patton; Jane Perlmutter; Laura Warren; Timothy Whelan; Jean L Wright; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-12
Authors: Simona F Shaitelman; Pamela J Schlembach; Isidora Arzu; Matthew Ballo; Elizabeth S Bloom; Daniel Buchholz; Gregory M Chronowski; Tomas Dvorak; Emily Grade; Karen E Hoffman; Patrick Kelly; Michelle Ludwig; George H Perkins; Valerie Reed; Shalin Shah; Michael C Stauder; Eric A Strom; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Joe Ensor; Donald Baumann; Alastair M Thompson; Diana Amaya; Tanisha Davis; William Guerra; Lois Hamblin; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Isabel Linares; María Isabel Tovar; Mercedes Zurita; Rosario Guerrero; Manuela Expósito; Rosario Del Moral Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Joanne S Haviland; J Roger Owen; John A Dewar; Rajiv K Agrawal; Jane Barrett; Peter J Barrett-Lee; H Jane Dobbs; Penelope Hopwood; Pat A Lawton; Brian J Magee; Judith Mills; Sandra Simmons; Mark A Sydenham; Karen Venables; Judith M Bliss; John R Yarnold Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Arti Parekh; Avani D Dholakia; Daniel J Zabranksy; Fariba Asrari; Melissa Camp; Mehran Habibi; Richard Zellars; Jean L Wright Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-06