1
|
Jung S, Kim JI, Park JM, Shin KH, Kim JH, Choi CH. Comparison of treatment plans between static jaw and jaw tracking techniques in postmastectomy intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Eng Sci Med 2022; 45:181-187. [PMID: 35041187 DOI: 10.1007/s13246-022-01100-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
This study reports a dosimetric comparison between treatment plans using static jaw and jaw tracking techniques in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Seventeen patients treated for left-sided breast cancer with implant-based reconstruction were subjected to IMRT plans. Another group of 22 patients treated for left-sided breast cancer without reconstruction was also subjected to IMRT plans. The plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system with static jaw and jaw tracking techniques. The dose-volume histograms and dosimetric indices, such as mean dose (Dmean), V20 Gy, V10 Gy, and V5 Gy (volumes receiving 20, 10, and 5 Gy at the least, respectively), and generalized equivalent uniform dose for organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed. A significant difference in the value of the dosimetric indices between the static jaw and jaw tracking plans was observed. For jaw tracking plans, the Dmean of the heart for the patients with implant-based reconstruction reduced from 11.6 ± 1.1 Gy to 10.0 ± 1.8 Gy, whereas the V5 Gy reduced from 92.0 ± 4.5% to 85.1 ± 8.4%. The Dmean of the heart for patients without reconstruction reduced from 11.0 ± 2.3 Gy to 9.8 ± 2.6 Gy, whereas the V5 Gy reduced from 81.4 ± 13.6% to 66.7 ± 17.4%. The dosimetric indices of OARs in the jaw tracking plans were significantly lower than those of the OARs in the static jaw plans. The jaw tracking technique was more effective for patients without reconstruction than for those with implant-based reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seongmoon Jung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Jung-In Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Jong Min Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Kyung Hwan Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Ho Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Chang Heon Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. .,Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. .,Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Immediate breast reconstruction has no impact on the oncologic outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 192:101-112. [PMID: 35034242 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06483-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction (iBR) on patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS After a retrospective review of patients treated with PMRT between 2008 and 2017, we included 153 patients who underwent iBR and 872 patients who did not undergo iBR. Among the 153 patients who underwent iBR, 34 received one-stage iBR with autologous tissue and 119 received two-stage iBR. Conventional fractionated PMRT with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions was performed in all patients. Propensity scores were calculated via logistic regression. RESULTS Patients who underwent iBR were younger, had early stage disease, and had more frequent hormone receptor-positive tumor than those who did not undergo iBR. After PSM, 127 patients from each group with well-balanced characteristics were selected. With a median follow-up of 67.5 months, iBR led to better 6-year disease-free survival rates compared to no iBR before PSM (84.8% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.003); after PSM, there was no significant difference (84.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.130). On multivariable analysis in the matched cohort, iBR was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; p = 0.175). In the sensitivity analysis, iBR was not associated with a lower disease-free survival across all prognostic groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of iBR failure was 15.0%. CONCLUSION In patients with adverse pathologic factors planning to receive PMRT, iBR did not compromise oncologic outcomes. In addition, iBR can be considered in patients treated with PMRT with several clinicopathologic risk factors.
Collapse
|