Marciana Nona Duma1. 1. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of the Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tremendous changes have occurred in the treatment of breast cancer. This paper reviews and unifies the available data on modern axillary management of breast cancer patients with focus on the target volume delineation for regional nodal irradiation according to the most important contouring guidelines, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG). SUMMARY: The use of extensive radiotherapy target volumes (level I, II, III, IV) is probably not necessary for all patients to reproduce the clinical benefit shown in the available randomized trials (EORTC, MA.20, AMAROS, Z0011). Nevertheless, given the results in the MA.20 trial, where the patients received more modern systemic therapies and high irradiation doses in the medial paraclavicular region (level IV) and level II, it can be justified to include these regions completely in selected high-risk patients. KEY MESSAGES: High-tangent irradiation results in a similar dose distribution in axillary levels I and II compared to the AMAROS treatment field design in some patients. This supports earlier assumptions that irradiation may have accounted for the good results after sentinel lymph node dissection alone in the Z0011 trial. The ESTRO and RTOG clinical target volume (CTV) definitions cover sufficiently the metastatic lymph node hotspots, with a better coverage for the ESTRO CTV. Further, contouring according to the ESTRO would spare a significantly larger part of the healthy lymphatic system, making it our preferred contouring atlas. Modern radiotherapy techniques, such as deep inspiration breath hold, should be cautiously employed in patients treated according to the inclusion criteria of the Z0011 as it will result in a lower dose to the axillary levels.
BACKGROUND: Tremendous changes have occurred in the treatment of breast cancer. This paper reviews and unifies the available data on modern axillary management of breast cancer patients with focus on the target volume delineation for regional nodal irradiation according to the most important contouring guidelines, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG). SUMMARY: The use of extensive radiotherapy target volumes (level I, II, III, IV) is probably not necessary for all patients to reproduce the clinical benefit shown in the available randomized trials (EORTC, MA.20, AMAROS, Z0011). Nevertheless, given the results in the MA.20 trial, where the patients received more modern systemic therapies and high irradiation doses in the medial paraclavicular region (level IV) and level II, it can be justified to include these regions completely in selected high-risk patients. KEY MESSAGES: High-tangent irradiation results in a similar dose distribution in axillary levels I and II compared to the AMAROS treatment field design in some patients. This supports earlier assumptions that irradiation may have accounted for the good results after sentinel lymph node dissection alone in the Z0011 trial. The ESTRO and RTOG clinical target volume (CTV) definitions cover sufficiently the metastatic lymph node hotspots, with a better coverage for the ESTRO CTV. Further, contouring according to the ESTRO would spare a significantly larger part of the healthy lymphatic system, making it our preferred contouring atlas. Modern radiotherapy techniques, such as deep inspiration breath hold, should be cautiously employed in patients treated according to the inclusion criteria of the Z0011 as it will result in a lower dose to the axillary levels.
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Edwin R Fisher; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Manjeet Chadha; Janaki Moni; Karla Ballman; Fran Laurie; Thomas A Buchholz; Armando Giuliano; Bruce G Haffty Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kai Joachim Borm; Markus Oechsner; Stephanie E Combs; Marciana-Nona Duma Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Michael E J Stouthandel; Françoise Kayser; Vincent Vakaet; Ralph Khoury; Pieter Deseyne; Chris Monten; Max Schoepen; Vincent Remouchamps; Alex De Caluwé; Guillaume Janoray; Wilfried De Neve; Stephane Mazy; Liv Veldeman; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 4.379