Deep inspiration breath-hold radiation therapy in left-sided breast cancer patients: a single-institution retrospective dosimetric analysis of organs at risk doses.
Breast cancer
Cardiac-sparing
Deep inspiration breath-hold radiation therapy
Heart toxicity
Left-sided
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
13
01
2022
accepted:
07
08
2022
pubmed:
9
9
2022
medline:
25
3
2023
entrez:
8
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radiotherapy can induce cardiac injury in left-sided breast cancer cases. Cardiac-sparing irradiation using the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique can achieve substantial dose reduction to vulnerable cardiac substructures compared with free breathing (FB). This study evaluated the dosimetric differences between both techniques at a single institution. From 2017 to 2019, 130 patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS; n = 121, 93.1%) or mastectomy (ME; n = 9, 6.9%) along with axillary lymph node staging (n = 105, 80.8%), followed by adjuvant irradiation in DIBH technique; adjuvant systemic therapy was included if applicable. 106 (81.5%) patients received conventional and 24 (18.5%) hypofractionated irradiation. Additionally, 12 patients received regional nodal irradiation. Computed tomography (CT) scans in FB and DIBH position were performed for all patients. Intrafractional 3D position monitoring of the patient surface in deep inspiration and breath gating was performed using Sentinel and Catalyst HD 3D surface scanning systems (C-RAD, Catalyst, C‑RAD AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Individual coaching and determination of breathing amplitude during the radiation planning CT was performed. Three-dimensional treatment planning was performed using standard tangential treatment portals (6 or 18 MV). The delineation of cardiac structures and both lungs was done in both the FB and the DIBH scan. All dosimetric parameters for cardiac structures were significantly reduced (p < 0.01 for all). The mean heart dose (Dmean) in the DIBH group was 1.3 Gy (range 0.5-3.6) vs. 2.2 Gy (range 0.9-8.8) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The Dmean for the left ventricle (LV) in DIBH was 1.5 Gy (range 0.6-4.5), as compared to 2.8 Gy (1.1-9.5) with FB (p < 0.001). The parameters for LV (V10 Gy, V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V23 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy) were reduced by about 100% (p < 0.001). The LAD Dmean in the DIBH group was 4.1 Gy (range 1.2-33.3) and 14.3 Gy (range 2.4-37.5) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The median values for LAD such as V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy, and V40 Gy decreased by roughly 100% (p < 0.001). An increasing volume of left lung in the DIBH position resulted in dose sparing of cardiac structures. For all ascertained dosimetric parameters, a significant dose reduction could be achieved in DIBH technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Radiotherapy can induce cardiac injury in left-sided breast cancer cases. Cardiac-sparing irradiation using the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique can achieve substantial dose reduction to vulnerable cardiac substructures compared with free breathing (FB). This study evaluated the dosimetric differences between both techniques at a single institution.
METHODS
From 2017 to 2019, 130 patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS; n = 121, 93.1%) or mastectomy (ME; n = 9, 6.9%) along with axillary lymph node staging (n = 105, 80.8%), followed by adjuvant irradiation in DIBH technique; adjuvant systemic therapy was included if applicable. 106 (81.5%) patients received conventional and 24 (18.5%) hypofractionated irradiation. Additionally, 12 patients received regional nodal irradiation. Computed tomography (CT) scans in FB and DIBH position were performed for all patients. Intrafractional 3D position monitoring of the patient surface in deep inspiration and breath gating was performed using Sentinel and Catalyst HD 3D surface scanning systems (C-RAD, Catalyst, C‑RAD AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Individual coaching and determination of breathing amplitude during the radiation planning CT was performed. Three-dimensional treatment planning was performed using standard tangential treatment portals (6 or 18 MV). The delineation of cardiac structures and both lungs was done in both the FB and the DIBH scan.
RESULTS
All dosimetric parameters for cardiac structures were significantly reduced (p < 0.01 for all). The mean heart dose (Dmean) in the DIBH group was 1.3 Gy (range 0.5-3.6) vs. 2.2 Gy (range 0.9-8.8) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The Dmean for the left ventricle (LV) in DIBH was 1.5 Gy (range 0.6-4.5), as compared to 2.8 Gy (1.1-9.5) with FB (p < 0.001). The parameters for LV (V10 Gy, V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V23 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy) were reduced by about 100% (p < 0.001). The LAD Dmean in the DIBH group was 4.1 Gy (range 1.2-33.3) and 14.3 Gy (range 2.4-37.5) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The median values for LAD such as V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy, and V40 Gy decreased by roughly 100% (p < 0.001). An increasing volume of left lung in the DIBH position resulted in dose sparing of cardiac structures.
CONCLUSION
For all ascertained dosimetric parameters, a significant dose reduction could be achieved in DIBH technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36074138
doi: 10.1007/s00066-022-01998-z
pii: 10.1007/s00066-022-01998-z
pmc: PMC10033469
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
379-388Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2004 Jul;72(1):53-60
pubmed: 15236874
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Sep;197(9):812-819
pubmed: 33938966
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 03;3:CD005008
pubmed: 26938118
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Aug;100(2):189-94
pubmed: 20673690
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Apr;197(4):308-316
pubmed: 33074349
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Aug 1;65(5):1375-80
pubmed: 16750314
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Apr;197(4):288-295
pubmed: 33067652
Radiat Oncol. 2020 May 24;15(1):117
pubmed: 32448164
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Dec 03;6(2):100633
pubmed: 33912735
Brachytherapy. 2019 Jan - Feb;18(1):50-56
pubmed: 30262411
Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jun 18;14(1):109
pubmed: 31215458
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Oct;195(10):861-871
pubmed: 31321461
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Feb;131:202-207
pubmed: 30097250
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;36(22):2288-2296
pubmed: 29791285
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Nov;16(11):3493-501
pubmed: 9817266
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Feb;18(2):259-268
pubmed: 28094198
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jan 15;108(1):179-82
pubmed: 23257897
Radiat Oncol. 2019 Mar 7;14(1):40
pubmed: 30845947
Lancet. 2016 Jan 16;387(10015):229-38
pubmed: 26494415
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Jan;122(1):17-23
pubmed: 27544819
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jan;90(1):116-21
pubmed: 19013659
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20;25(21):3031-7
pubmed: 17634481
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Oct 26;11(1):143
pubmed: 27784326
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Dec 10;38(35):4175-4183
pubmed: 32840419
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 1;30(4):380-6
pubmed: 22203772
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jul 10;10:141
pubmed: 26159409
Acta Oncol. 2018 Oct;57(10):1325-1330
pubmed: 30264635
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jan 1;79(1):10-8
pubmed: 20421148
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Dec 1;66(5):1335-8
pubmed: 17084562
Radiat Oncol J. 2020 Sep;38(3):181-188
pubmed: 33012146
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Dec 30;10:264
pubmed: 26715382
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jul 1;68(3):935-42
pubmed: 17467923
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 1;24(25):4100-6
pubmed: 16908933
Ann Oncol. 2001 Aug;12(8):1075-80
pubmed: 11583188
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Jan;195(1):1-12
pubmed: 30310926
Lancet. 2017 Sep 9;390(10099):1048-1060
pubmed: 28779963
J Clin Oncol. 1990 Apr;8(4):741-50
pubmed: 2179483
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98
pubmed: 23484825