Proton pencil beam scanning reduces secondary cancer risk in breast cancer patients with internal mammary chain involvement compared to photon radiotherapy.
Adult
Aged
Breast
/ radiation effects
Breast Neoplasms
/ pathology
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Neoplasms, Second Primary
/ prevention & control
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Photons
Prognosis
Proton Therapy
/ methods
Radiation Injuries
/ prevention & control
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Conformal
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Breast cancer
Proton therapy
Secondary cancer risk
Tangential 3D-CRT
VMAT
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Oct 2020
02 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
24
01
2020
accepted:
24
09
2020
entrez:
3
10
2020
pubmed:
4
10
2020
medline:
14
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) represents an interesting option for the treatment of breast cancer (BC) patients with nodal involvement. Here we compare tangential 3D-CRT and VMAT to PBS proton therapy (PT) in terms of secondary cancer risk (SCR) for the lungs and for contralateral breast. Five BC patients including supraclavicular (SVC) nodes in the target (Group 1) and five including SVC plus internal-mammary-nodes (IMNs, Group 2) were considered. The Group 1 patients were planned by PT versus tangential 3D-CRT in free-breathing (FB). The Group 2 patients were planned by PT versus VMAT considering both FB and deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) irradiation. The prescription dose to the target volume was 50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). A constant RBE = 1.1 was assumed for PT. The SCR was evaluated with the excess absolute risk (EAR) formalism, considering also the age dependence. A cumulative EAR was finally computed. According to the linear, linear-exponential and linear-plateau dose response model, the cumulative EAR for Group 1 patients after PT was equal to 45 ± 10, 17 ± 3 and 15 ± 3, respectively. The corresponding relative increase for tangential 3D-CRT was equal to a factor 2.1 ± 0.5, 2.1 ± 0.4 and 2.3 ± 0.4. Group 2 patients showed a cumulative EAR after PT in FB equal to 65 ± 3, 21 ± 1 and 20 ± 1, according to the different models; the relative risk obtained with VMAT increased by a factor 3.5 ± 0.2, 5.2 ± 0.3 and 5.1 ± 0.3. Similar values emerge from DIBH plans. Contrary to photon radiotherapy, PT appears to be not sensitive to the age dependence due to the very low delivered dose. PBS PT is associated to significant SCR reduction in BC patients compared to photon radiotherapy. The benefits are maximized for young patients with both SVC and IMNs involvement. When combined with the improved sparing of the heart, this might contribute to the establishment of effective patient-selection criteria for proton BC treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33008412
doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01671-8
pii: 10.1186/s13014-020-01671-8
pmc: PMC7532613
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Subventions
Organisme : Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
ID : MoVe IT Call CSN5
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Sep;128(3):428-433
pubmed: 29914648
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Nov;65(2):89-98
pubmed: 12443804
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jun 1;74(2):539-45
pubmed: 19427555
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Jan;32(1):26-34
pubmed: 31377082
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014 Jan;23(1):51-64
pubmed: 23947545
Radiother Oncol. 2004 Jul;72(1):53-60
pubmed: 15236874
Theor Biol Med Model. 2011 Jul 26;8:27
pubmed: 21791103
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):30-36
pubmed: 26684410
Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2087-106
pubmed: 16360786
Acta Oncol. 2005;44(4):339-47
pubmed: 16120542
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Feb 1;91(2):427-34
pubmed: 25636765
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2018 Apr;28(2):79-87
pubmed: 29735194
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Aug;149:212-218
pubmed: 32464163
Acta Oncol. 2019 Jun;58(6):934-942
pubmed: 30938217
Acta Oncol. 2017 May;56(5):730-736
pubmed: 28281862
Radiat Oncol. 2019 Aug 28;14(1):153
pubmed: 31462267
Radiat Res. 2007 Jul;168(1):1-64
pubmed: 17722996
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Mar;110(3):471-6
pubmed: 24444525
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Apr 1;61(5):1510-5
pubmed: 15817357
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2008 Apr;47(2):253-63
pubmed: 18157543
Phys Med Biol. 2014 May 21;59(10):2457-68
pubmed: 24778349
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 20;37(30):2778-2785
pubmed: 31449469
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jan 1;76(1):287-95
pubmed: 19775832
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 20;35(15):1641-1649
pubmed: 28319436
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Nov 7;60(21):8601-19
pubmed: 26501569
Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6818-37
pubmed: 23127075
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018 Jun;30(6):346-353
pubmed: 29483041
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Sep 1;84(1):e115-22
pubmed: 22543199
Med Phys. 2009 Apr;36(4):1138-43
pubmed: 19472619
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Dec 30;10:264
pubmed: 26715382
Acta Oncol. 2017 Nov;56(11):1428-1436
pubmed: 28826308
Int J Radiat Biol. 1998 Oct;74(4):501-9
pubmed: 9798961
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 27;10(1):1220
pubmed: 31988348
Radiother Oncol. 1998 Sep;48(3):293-305
pubmed: 9925249
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2000 Mar;39(1):17-24
pubmed: 10789891
N Engl J Med. 1992 Mar 19;326(12):781-5
pubmed: 1538720
Acta Oncol. 2011 Jan;50(1):42-50
pubmed: 20843181
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Dec;121(3):402-413
pubmed: 27639892
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Jan;106(1):28-32
pubmed: 23199652
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):279-286
pubmed: 27084647
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jul;112(1):17-22
pubmed: 24825176
Phys Med. 2020 Aug;76:1-6
pubmed: 32563956
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98
pubmed: 23484825