Resource to prepare patients for deep inspiration breath hold: the RESPIRE project

Exploring women's experiences of breast or trunk lymphoedema following treatment for breast cancer

Background:The experiences of women who develop lymphoedema in the breast or trunk (BTL) after treatment for breast cancer have received little attention in either the academic or clinical setting. Consequently, women's support needs remain unrecognized.Objective and Design:As this study sought to gain an understanding of women's unheard experiences of a poorly understood condition, it was underpinned by The Silences Framework1 which facilitates research into sensitive or marginalized issues.Sample and Methods:Fourteen women with BTL participated in individual, unstructured interviews, some using photographs or drawings to reflect their experiences. The data was analyzed using the Listening Guide.2Findings:Participants revealed that they were unprepared for the development of BTL; for many, the symptoms were unfamiliar and distressing. Furthermore, their concerns were often dismissed by healthcare professionals (HCPs), leading to long delays in obtaining an accurate diagnosis and treatment. For some women, the practical and emotional impact of developing BTL was profound.Practice Implications:Increased awareness and education about the risk of BTL as a potential side-effect of treatment for breast cancer is required for HCPs and patients. This will alleviate distress, better prepare patients, and ensure timely referral for treatment to manage this chronic condition.

Cardiac dose reduction using deep inspiratory breath hold (DIBH) in radiation treatment of left sided breast cancer patients with breast conservation surgery and modified radical mastectomy

PURPOSE

Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces heart and pulmonary doses during left-sided breast radiation therapy (RT); however, there is limited information whether the reduction in doses is similar in patients with modified radical MRM (MRM) and breast conservation surgery (BCS). The primary objective was to determine whether DIBH offers greater dosimetric reduction in cardiac doses in patients with MRM as compared to BCS with secondary objectives of documenting time consumed in counseling, simulation and planning such techniques.

METHODS

Thirty patients with diagnosis of left sided breast cancer underwent CT simulation both free breathing (FB) and DIBH. Patients were grouped into two cohorts: MRM (n = 20) and BCS (n = 10). 3D-conformal plans were developed and FB was compared to DIBH for entire group (n = 30) and each cohort using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous variables and McNemar's test for discrete variables. The percent relative reduction conferred by DIBH in mean heart (D_mean heart) and left anterior descending artery dose (LAD_mean and LAD_max), heart V25,V10, V2 and ipsilateral D_meanLung,V20, V12 were compared between the two cohorts using Wilcox rank-sum testing. A two-tailed p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Time consumed during FB and DIBH from patient counseling to planning was documented.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing BCS had comparable boost target coverage on DIBH and FB. For the overall group (n = 30), DIBH reduced D_mean heart and LAD dose, V25, V10 and V2 doses for the heart and Ipsilateral D_meanLung, V20, V12 which was statistically significant. For individual cohorts DIBH did not significantly reduce the lung (Ipsilateral D_meanLung, V20, V12) and LAD (LAD_mean and LAD_max) doses for BCS while significant reduction in all cardiopulmonary doses was seen in MRM cohort. Despite significant reductions with DIBH in MRM, ipsilateral lung constraint of V12 < 15% was less commonly achieved in MRM (n = 11, 55%) requiring nodal radiation as compared to BCS (n = 3, 30%). Percent reduction in all cardiac and pulmonary dosimetric parameters with DIBH was similar in the MRM cohort as compared to BCS cohort. In total 73.1 ± 2.6 min was required for FB as compared to 108.1 ± 4.1 min in DIBH.

CONCLUSION

DIBH led to significant reduction of cardiac doses in both MRM and BCS. Reduction of lung and LAD doses were significant in MRM cohort. All cardiac constraints were met with DIBH in both cohorts, lung constraints were less frequently met in MRM cohort requiring nodal radiation.