42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Proton radiotherapy for chest wall and regional lymphatic radiation; dose comparisons and treatment delivery

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The delivery of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can be challenging for patients with left sided breast cancer that have undergone mastectomy. This study investigates the use of protons for PMRT in selected patients with unfavorable cardiac anatomy. We also report the first clinical application of protons for these patients.

          Methods and materials

          Eleven patients were planned with protons, partially wide tangent photon fields (PWTF), and photon/electron (P/E) fields. Plans were generated with the goal of achieving 95% coverage of target volumes while maximally sparing cardiac and pulmonary structures. In addition, we report on two patients with unfavorable cardiac anatomy and IMN involvement that were treated with a mix of proton and standard radiation.

          Results

          PWTF, P/E, and proton plans were generated and compared. Reasonable target volume coverage was achieved with PWTF and P/E fields, but proton therapy achieved superior coverage with a more homogeneous plan. Substantial cardiac and pulmonary sparing was achieved with proton therapy as compared to PWTF and P/E. In the two clinical cases, the delivery of proton radiation with a 7.2 to 9 Gy photon and electron component was feasible and well tolerated. Akimbo positioning was necessary for gantry clearance for one patient; the other was treated on a breast board with standard positioning (arms above her head). LAO field arrangement was used for both patients. Erythema and fatigue were the only noted side effects.

          Conclusions

          Proton RT enables delivery of radiation to the chest wall and regional lymphatics, including the IMN, without compromise of coverage and with improved sparing of surrounding normal structures. This treatment is feasible, however, optimal patient set up may vary and field size is limited without multiple fields/matching.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk postmenopausal breast-cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c randomised trial.

          Postmastectomy radiotherapy is associated with a lower locoregional recurrence rate and improved disease-free and overall survival when combined with chemotherapy in premenopausal high-risk breast-cancer patients. However, whether the same benefits apply also in postmenopausal women treated with adjuvant tamoxifen for similar high-risk cancer is unclear. In a randomised trial among postmenopausal women who had undergone mastectomy, we compared adjuvant tamoxifen alone with tamoxifen plus postoperative radiotherapy. Between 1982 and 1990, postmenopausal women with high-risk breast cancer (stage II or III) were randomly assigned adjuvant tamoxifen (30 mg daily for 1 year) alone (689) or with postoperative radiotherapy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes (686). Median follow-up was 123 months. The endpoints were first site of recurrence (locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, or both), and disease-free and overall survival. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 52 (8%) of the radiotherapy plus tamoxifen group and 242 (35%) of the tamoxifen only group (p<0.001). In total there were 321 (47%) and 411 (60%) recurrences, respectively. Disease-free survival was 36% in the radiotherapy plus tamoxifen group and 24% in the tamoxifen alone group (p<0.001). Overall survival was also higher in the radiotherapy group (385 vs 434 deaths; survival 45 vs 36% at 10 years, p=0.03). Postoperative radiotherapy decreased the risk of locoregional recurrence and was associated with improved survival in high-risk postmenopausal breast-cancer patients after mastectomy and limited axillary dissection, with 1 year of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Improved survival in high-risk breast cancer can best be achieved by a strategy of both locoregional and systemic tumour control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Locoregional radiation therapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: 20-year results of the British Columbia randomized trial.

            The British Columbia randomized radiation trial was designed to determine the survival impact of locoregional radiation therapy in premenopausal patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer treated by modified radical mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Three hundred eighteen patients were assigned to receive no further therapy or radiation therapy (37.5 Gy in 16 fractions). Previous analysis at the 15-year follow-up showed that radiation therapy was associated with a statistically significant improvement in breast cancer survival but that improvement in overall survival was of only borderline statistical significance. We report the analysis of data from the 20-year follow-up. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Relative risk estimates were calculated by the Wald test from the proportional hazards regression model. All statistical tests were two-sided. At the 20 year follow up (median follow up for live patients: 249 months) chemotherapy and radiation therapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, were associated with a statistically significant improvement in all end points analyzed, including survival free of isolated locoregional recurrences (74% versus 90%, respectively; relative risk [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.18 to 0.71; P = .002), systemic relapse-free survival (31% versus 48%; RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.88; P = .004), breast cancer-free survival (48% versus 30%; RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.83; P = .001), event-free survival (35% versus 25%; RR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.92; P = .009), breast cancer-specific survival (53% versus 38%; RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.90; P = .008), and, in contrast to the 15-year follow-up results, overall survival (47% versus 37%; RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.98; P = .03). Long-term toxicities, including cardiac deaths (1.8% versus 0.6%), were minimal for both arms. For patients with high-risk breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy, treatment with radiation therapy (schedule of 16 fractions) and adjuvant chemotherapy leads to better survival outcomes than chemotherapy alone, and it is well tolerated, with acceptable long-term toxicity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy.

              Clinical proton beam therapy has been based on the use of a generic relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.0 or 1.1, since the available evidence has been interpreted as indicating that the magnitude of RBE variation with treatment parameters is small relative to our abilities to determine RBEs. As substantial clinical experience and additional experimental determinations of RBE have accumulated and the number of proton radiation therapy centers is projected to increase, it is appropriate to reassess the rationale for the continued use of a generic RBE and for that RBE to be 1.0-1.1. Results of experimental determinations of RBE of in vitro and in vivo systems are examined, and then several of the considerations critical to a decision to move from a generic to tissue-, dose/fraction-, and LET-specific RBE values are assessed. The impact of an error in the value assigned to RBE on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) is discussed. The incidence of major morbidity in proton-treated patients at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for malignant tumors of the skull base and of the prostate is reviewed. This is followed by an analysis of the magnitude of the experimental effort to exclude an error in RBE of >or=10% using in vivo systems. The published RBE values, using colony formation as the measure of cell survival, from in vitro studies indicate a substantial spread between the diverse cell lines. The average value at mid SOBP (Spread Out Bragg Peak) over all dose levels is approximately 1.2, ranging from 0.9 to 2.1. The average RBE value at mid SOBP in vivo is approximately 1.1, ranging from 0.7 to 1.6. Overall, both in vitro and in vivo data indicate a statistically significant increase in RBE for lower doses per fraction, which is much smaller for in vivo systems. There is agreement that there is a measurable increase in RBE over the terminal few millimeters of the SOBP, which results in an extension of the bioeffective range of the beam in the range of 1-2 mm. There is no published report to indicate that the RBE of 1.1 is low. However, a substantial proportion of patients treated at approximately 2 cobalt Gray equivalent (CGE)/fraction 5 or more years ago were treated by a combination of both proton and photon beams. Were the RBE to be erroneously underestimated by approximately 10%, the increase in complication frequency would be quite serious were the complication incidence for the reference treatment >or=3% and the slope of the dose response curves steep, e.g., a gamma(50) approximately 4. To exclude >or=1.2 as the correct RBE for a specific condition or tissue at the 95% confidence limit would require relatively large and multiple assays. At present, there is too much uncertainty in the RBE value for any human tissue to propose RBE values specific for tissue, dose/fraction, proton energy, etc. The experimental in vivo and clinical data indicate that continued employment of a generic RBE value and for that value to be 1.1 is reasonable. However, there is a local "hot region" over the terminal few millimeters of the SOBP and an extension of the biologically effective range. This needs to be considered in treatment planning, particularly for single field plans or for an end of range in or close to a critical structure. There is a clear need for prospective assessments of normal tissue reactions in proton irradiated patients and determinations of RBE values for several late responding tissues in laboratory animal systems, especially as a function of dose/fraction in the range of 1-4 Gy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiation Oncology (London, England)
                BioMed Central
                1748-717X
                2013
                24 March 2013
                : 8
                : 71
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cox 340, 100 Blossom Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
                Article
                1748-717X-8-71
                10.1186/1748-717X-8-71
                3627609
                23521809
                97b5bf2a-80a5-4051-86fe-e4f797318c71
                Copyright ©2013 MacDonald et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 October 2012
                : 12 March 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast cancer,treatment planning,proton beam radiation
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast cancer, treatment planning, proton beam radiation

                Comments

                Comment on this article