1
|
Shaitelman SF, Anderson BM, Arthur DW, Bazan JG, Bellon JR, Bradfield L, Coles CE, Gerber NK, Kathpal M, Kim L, Laronga C, Meattini I, Nichols EM, Pierce LJ, Poppe MM, Spears PA, Vinayak S, Whelan T, Lyons JA. Partial Breast Irradiation for Patients With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:112-132. [PMID: 37977261 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.11.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2023] [Revised: 11/06/2023] [Accepted: 11/07/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on appropriate indications and techniques for partial breast irradiation (PBI) for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. METHODS ASTRO convened a task force to address 4 key questions focused on the appropriate indications and techniques for PBI as an alternative to whole breast irradiation (WBI) to result in similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) and toxicity outcomes. Also addressed were aspects related to the technical delivery of PBI, including dose-fractionation regimens, target volumes, and treatment parameters for different PBI techniques. The guideline is based on a systematic review provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Recommendations were created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. RESULTS PBI delivered using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, multicatheter brachytherapy, and single-entry brachytherapy results in similar IBR as WBI with long-term follow-up. Some patient characteristics and tumor features were underrepresented in the randomized controlled trials, making it difficult to fully define IBR risks for patients with these features. Appropriate dose-fractionation regimens, target volume delineation, and treatment planning parameters for delivery of PBI are outlined. Intraoperative radiation therapy alone is associated with a higher IBR rate compared with WBI. A daily or every-other-day external beam PBI regimen is preferred over twice-daily regimens due to late toxicity concerns. CONCLUSIONS Based on published data, the ASTRO task force has proposed recommendations to inform best clinical practices on the use of PBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD - Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Bethany M Anderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Douglas W Arthur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Jose G Bazan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California
| | - Jennifer R Bellon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Lisa Bradfield
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Charlotte E Coles
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Naamit K Gerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Madeera Kathpal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Wake County Campus, Raleigh, North Carolina
| | - Leonard Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD - Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Camden, New Jersey
| | - Christine Laronga
- Department of Breast Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Elizabeth M Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Lori J Pierce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew M Poppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Patricia A Spears
- Patient Representative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Shaveta Vinayak
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Timothy Whelan
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Janice A Lyons
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Choi S, Dreyfuss I, Taswell CS, Cyriac J, Butkus M, Takita C. Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer. Crit Rev Oncog 2024; 29:67-82. [PMID: 38683154 DOI: 10.1615/critrevoncog.2023050319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
Given the radiobiological and physical properties of the proton, proton beam therapy has the potential to be advantageous for many patients compared with conventional radiotherapy by limiting toxicity and improving patient outcomes in specific breast cancer scenarios.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seraphina Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Isabella Dreyfuss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | | | - Jonathan Cyriac
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Michael Butkus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wu XY, Chen M, Cao L, Li M, Chen JY. Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Review of Potential Approaches for Patient Selection. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024; 23:15330338241234788. [PMID: 38389426 PMCID: PMC10894553 DOI: 10.1177/15330338241234788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy may be a compelling technical option for the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical property known as the "Bragg peak." This feature offers distinct advantages, promising superior dose conformity within the tumor area and reduced radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissues, enhancing the potential for better treatment outcomes. However, proton therapy is accompanied by inherent challenges, primarily higher costs and limited accessibility when compared to well-developed photon irradiation. Thus, in clinical practice, it is important for radiation oncologists to carefully select patients before recommendation of proton therapy to ensure the transformation of dosimetric benefits into tangible clinical benefits. Yet, the optimal indications for proton therapy in breast cancer patients remain uncertain. While there is no widely recognized methodology for patient selection, numerous attempts have been made in this direction. In this review, we intended to present an inspiring summarization and discussion about the current practices and exploration on the approaches of this treatment decision-making process in terms of treatment-related side-effects, tumor control, and cost-efficiency, including the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model, the tumor control probability (TCP) model, genomic biomarkers, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and so on. Additionally, we conducted an evaluation of the eligibility criteria in ongoing randomized controlled trials and analyzed their reference value in patient selection. We evaluated the pros and cons of various potential patient selection approaches and proposed possible directions for further optimization and exploration. In summary, while proton therapy holds significant promise in breast cancer treatment, its integration into clinical practice calls for a thoughtful, evidence-driven strategy. By continuously refining the patient selection criteria, we can harness the full potential of proton radiotherapy while ensuring maximum benefit for breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao-Yu Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Mei Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Lu Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Min Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jia-Yi Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gao RW, Mullikin TC, Aziz KA, Afzal A, Smith NL, Routman DM, Gergelis KR, Harmsen WS, Remmes NB, Tseung HSWC, Shiraishi SS, Boughey JC, Ruddy KJ, Harless CA, Garda AE, Waddle MR, Park SS, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:846-856. [PMID: 37244627 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2023] [Revised: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT. RESULTS A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm. CONCLUSIONS With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Khaled A Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Na L Smith
- Sanford Cancer Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - William S Harmsen
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Allison E Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Farah MH, Viola KE, Nayfeh T, Saadi S, Shah V, Hasan B, Shah S, Mohammed K, Riaz IB, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Wang Z. Partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2023; 115:1011-1019. [PMID: 37289549 PMCID: PMC10483267 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Revised: 05/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. CONCLUSIONS Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Magdoleen H Farah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kelly E Viola
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Tarek Nayfeh
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Samer Saadi
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Vishal Shah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Bashar Hasan
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sahrish Shah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Khaled Mohammed
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Irbaz Bin Riaz
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Larry J Prokop
- Library Public Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - M Hassan Murad
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in female patients. Along with surgery, radiotherapy is one of the most commonly prescribed treatments for breast cancer. Over the past few decades, breast cancer radiotherapy technology has significantly improved. Nevertheless, related posttherapy complications should not be overlooked. Common complications include dose-related coronary toxicity, radiation pneumonia, and the risk of second primary cancer of the contralateral breast. Particle radiotherapy with protons or carbon ions is widely attracting interest as a potential competitor to conventional photon radiotherapy because of its superior physical and biological characteristics. This article summarizes the results of clinical research on proton and carbon-ion radiotherapy for treating breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanguang Ruan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma University, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Masahiko Okamoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma University, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Tatsuya Ohno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma University, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Yang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China
| | - Yuan Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma University, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, and the second leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States. Radiation therapy is an important component in the multimodal management of breast cancer, including early stage and locally advanced breast cancers, as well as metastatic cases. Breast cancer radiation therapy has seen significant advancements over the past 20 years. This article discusses the latest advances in the radiotherapeutic management of breast cancer, especially focusing on the technological advances in radiation treatment planning and techniques that have exploited the understanding of radiation biology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rituraj Upadhyay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital D259, 460 W 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
| | - Jose G Bazan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1145 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH 43212, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chen Z, Dominello MM, Joiner MC, Burmeister JW. Proton versus photon radiation therapy: A clinical review. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1133909. [PMID: 37064131 PMCID: PMC10091462 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1133909] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2022] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/31/2023] Open
Abstract
While proton radiation therapy offers substantially better dose distribution characteristics than photon radiation therapy in certain clinical applications, data demonstrating a quantifiable clinical advantage is still needed for many treatment sites. Unfortunately, the number of patients treated with proton radiation therapy is still comparatively small, in some part due to the lack of evidence of clear benefits over lower-cost photon-based treatments. This review is designed to present the comparative clinical outcomes between proton and photon therapies, and to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of proton radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhe Chen
- School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States
- *Correspondence: Zhe Chen,
| | - Michael M. Dominello
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States
| | - Michael C. Joiner
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States
| | - Jay W. Burmeister
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sayan M, Kilic S, Zhang Y, Liu B, Jan I, George M, Kumar S, Haffty B, Ohri N. Early Toxicity and Patient-Reported Cosmetic Outcomes in Patients Treated With Adjuvant Proton-Based Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery. Clin Breast Cancer 2023; 23:176-180. [PMID: 36529604 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.11.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To evaluate the dosimetric data, early toxicity, and patient-reported cosmetic outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant proton-based radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by proton-based RT from 2015 to 2020. Patient-reported cosmetic outcomes were graded as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Early toxicity outcomes were graded by the treating physician during treatment. Dose-volume histograms were reviewed to obtain dosimetry data. RESULTS We identified 21 patients treated with adjuvant proton-based RT. Median whole breast dose delivered was 46.8 Gy (range, 40.0-50.4 Gy). Target volumes included the regional lymph nodes in 17 patients (81%). Seventeen patients (81%) received a lumpectomy boost. The median planning target volume V95 was 94% (range, 77%-100%), V100 71% (range, 60%-97%), V110 2% (range 0%-18%), and median max point dose was 115% (range, 105%-120%). The median ipsilateral breast V105 was 367.3 cc (range, 0-1172 cc) and V110 was 24.1 cc (range, 0-321.3 cc). Grade 2 and 3 dermatitis occurred in 62% and 14% of patients, respectively. Grade 2 and 3 pain was reported by 33% and 10% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up at the time of cosmetic evaluation was 27 months (range, 5-42 months). Four patients (21%) reported fair cosmetic outcome and 15 patients (79%) reported good or excellent cosmetic outcome. No poor cosmesis was reported. CONCLUSION Adjuvant proton-based radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery is well tolerated with acceptable rates of acute toxicities and a high rate of good-to-excellent patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mutlay Sayan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
| | - Sarah Kilic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Yin Zhang
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Bo Liu
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Imraan Jan
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Mridula George
- Department of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Shicha Kumar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Bruce Haffty
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Nisha Ohri
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Anderson B, Arthur D, Hannoun-Levi JM, Kamrava M, Khan A, Kuske R, Scanderbeg D, Shah C, Shaitelman S, Showalter T, Vicini F, Wazer D, Yashar C. Partial breast irradiation: An updated consensus statement from the American brachytherapy society. Brachytherapy 2022; 21:726-747. [PMID: 36117086 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2022.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2022] [Revised: 06/15/2022] [Accepted: 07/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE In recent years, results with mature follow-up have been reported for several Phase III trials randomizing women to receive whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus varying modalities of partial breast irradiation (PBI). It is important to recognize that these methods vary in terms of volume of breast tissue treated, dose per fraction, and duration of therapy. As such, clinical and technical guidelines may vary among the various PBI techniques. METHODS Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in PBI performed an extensive literature review focusing on the highest quality data available for the numerous PBI options offered in the modern era. Data were evaluated for strength of evidence and published outcomes were assessed. RESULTS The majority of women enrolled on randomized trials of WBI versus PBI have been age >45 years with tumor size <3 cm, negative margins, and negative lymph nodes. The panel also concluded that PBI can be offered to selected women with estrogen receptor negative and/or Her2 amplified breast cancer, as well as ductal carcinoma in situ, and should generally be avoided in women with extensive lymphovascular space invasion. CONCLUSIONS This updated guideline summarizes published clinical trials of PBI methods. The panel also highlights the role of PBI for women facing special circumstances, such as history of cosmetic breast augmentation or prior breast irradiation, and discusses promising novel modalities that are currently under study, such as ultrashort and preoperative PBI. Updated consensus guidelines are also provided to inform patient selection for PBI and to characterize the strength of evidence to support varying PBI modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bethany Anderson
- Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
| | - Douglas Arthur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
| | | | | | - Atif Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Robert Kuske
- Arizona Breast Cancer Specialists, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - Daniel Scanderbeg
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA
| | - Chirag Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
| | - Simona Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Timothy Showalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA
| | | | - David Wazer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Catheryn Yashar
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Choi JI, Prabhu K, Hartsell WF, DeWees T, Sinesi C, Vargas C, Benda RK, Cahlon O, Chang AL. Outcomes and toxicities after proton partial breast radiotherapy for early stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer: 3-Year results of a phase II multi-center trial. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 37:71-77. [PMID: 36093343 PMCID: PMC9450061 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy is a good treatment option for partial breast irradiation. Proton PBI results in excellent local tumor control and OAR sparing. Cosmesis and quality of life with PBT are comparable to other PBI modalities.
Purpose Proton therapy (PT) for partial breast irradiation (PBI) in early-stage breast cancer can decrease morbidity versus photon PBI with superior organs-at-risk sparing. We report 3-year outcomes of the first prospective, multicenter, phase II trial of proton PBI. Methods and Materials This Proton Collaborative Group phase II trial (PCG BRE007-12) recruited women ≥ 50 years with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ≤3cm, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing breast conserving surgery followed by proton PBI (40 Gy(RBE), 10 daily fractions). Primary endpoint was freedom from ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence. Adverse events were prospectively graded using CTCAEv4.0. Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) assessed patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL). Results Thirty-eight evaluable patients enrolled between 2/2013–11/2016. Median age was 67 years (range 50–79); 55 % had left-sided disease, and median tumor size was 0.9 cm. Treatment was delivered in ≥ 2 fields predominantly with uniform scanning PT (n = 37). At 35-month median follow-up (12–62), all patients were alive, and none had local, regional or distant disease progression. One patient developed an ER-negative contralateral IDC. Seven grade 2 adverse events occurred; no radiotherapy-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred. Changes in BCTOS subdomain mean scores were maximum 0.36, indicating no meaningful change in PRQOL. Median heart volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy), lung V20Gy, and lung V10Gy were 0 %, 0 % and 0.19 %, respectively. Conclusion At 3 years, proton PBI provided 100 % cancer control for early-stage, ER-positive breast cancer. Toxicities are minimal, and PRQOL remains acceptable with continued follow-up. These findings support PT as a safe and effective PBI delivery option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- New York Proton Center, 225 East 126th Street, New York, NY 10035, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
- Corresponding author at: 225 East 126 Street, New York, NY 10035, USA.
| | - Kiran Prabhu
- Integris Health, 5911 W. Memorial, Oklahoma City, OK 73142, USA
| | - William F. Hartsell
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago Proton Center, 4455 Weaver Pkwy, Warrenville, IL 60555, USA
| | - Todd DeWees
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA
| | - Christopher Sinesi
- Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute, 40 Enterprise Pkwy, Hampton, VA 23666, USA
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Rashmi K. Benda
- Lynn Cancer Institute, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, 701 NW 13 St, Boca Raton, FL 33486, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- New York Proton Center, 225 East 126th Street, New York, NY 10035, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Andrew L. Chang
- California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, 9730 Summers Ridge Rd, San Diego, CA 92121, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kowalchuk RO, Corbin KS, Jimenez RB. Particle Therapy for Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14041066. [PMID: 35205814 PMCID: PMC8870138 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14041066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Revised: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Particle therapy has received increasing attention in the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical properties that may enhance patient quality of life and reduce the late effects of therapy. In this review, we will examine the rationale for the use of proton and carbon therapy in the treatment of breast cancer and highlight their potential for sparing normal tissue injury. We will discuss the early dosimetric and clinical studies that have been pursued to date in this domain before focusing on the remaining open questions limiting the widespread adoption of particle therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman O. Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; (R.O.K.); (K.S.C.)
| | - Kimberly S. Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; (R.O.K.); (K.S.C.)
| | - Rachel B. Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Alterio D, La Rocca E, Volpe S, Camarda AM, Casbarra A, Russell-Edu W, Zerella MA, Orecchia R, Galimberti V, Veronesi P, Leonardi MC, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Hypofractionated proton therapy in breast cancer: where are we? A critical review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 192:249-263. [PMID: 35025004 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06516-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To critically review available literature on hypofractionated (≥ 3 Gy/fraction) proton therapy (PT) for breast cancer (BCa). METHODS A systematic screening of the literature was performed in April 2021 in compliance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommendations. All full-text publication written in English were considered eligible. Acute and late toxicities, oncological outcomes and dosimetric features were considered for the analysis. RESULTS Twelve publications met the inclusion criteria; all studies but one focused on accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Eleven works considered post-operative patients, one referred to ABPI as a curative-intent modality. The dosimetric profile of PT compared favorably with both photon-based 3D conformal and intensity-modulated techniques, while a more extended follow-up is warranted to fully assess both the long-term toxicities and the non-inferiority of oncological outcomes. CONCLUSION Our work shows that results on PT for BCa are currently only available for APBI applications, with dosimetric analyses demonstrating a clear advantage over both 3D conformal and intensity modulated X-rays techniques, especially when ≥ 2 treatment fields were used. However, further evidence is needed to define whether such theoretical benefit translates into clinical improvements, especially in the long-term.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Alterio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Eliana La Rocca
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy. .,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
| | - Anna Maria Camarda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessia Casbarra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Maria Alessia Zerella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Viviana Galimberti
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Veronesi
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCSS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Vicini F, Broughman J, Halima A, Mayo Z, Obi E, Al-Hilli Z, Arthur D, Wazer D, Shah C. Delivery of Adjuvant Radiation in 5 Days or Less After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 112:1090-1104. [PMID: 34921906 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2021] [Revised: 11/21/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent data have been published supporting the application of ultra-short radiation therapy (RT) regimens for women with early stage breast cancer following breast conserving surgery (BCS). What has remained controversial is whether and how to apply accelerated whole breast irradiation (AWBI) or accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) approaches in these patients, as well as the consideration of intraoperative RT (IORT) for this population. METHODS We performed a systematic review of the literature searching for randomized and prospective data published evaluating ultra-short RT delivered in 5-days or less with APBI, AWBI, or IORT. RESULTS We identified two randomized studies applying AWBI (n=5,011 patients) with 5 to 10 year follow up, which supported the use of ultra-short course AWBI (5 fractions in one week) as compared to hypofractionated WBI. We identified six randomized trials evaluating APBI (as compared to WBI) in 5 days or less (n= 8,415) with numerous (n=55) prospective studies as well, with the data supporting short course APBI as compared to WBI. Finally, we identified two randomized trials evaluating IORT; however, both trials demonstrated elevated rates of recurrence with IORT as compared to WBI. CONCLUSIONS The current body of data available for ultra-short adjuvant RT regimens delivered in 5-days or less after BCS overwhelming support their utilization. While data for both exists, APBI regimens have, by far, greater numbers of patients and longer follow-up as compared to AWBI. Also, given increased rates of recurrence seen with IORT with long-term follow-up, this should not be considered a standard approach at this time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - James Broughman
- Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Ahmed Halima
- Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Zachary Mayo
- Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Elizabeth Obi
- Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Zahraa Al-Hilli
- Department of General Surgery, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Douglas Arthur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - David Wazer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Chirag Shah
- Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Piruzan E, Vosoughi N, Mahdavi SR, Khalafi L, Mahani H. Target motion management in breast cancer radiation therapy. Radiol Oncol 2021; 55:393-408. [PMID: 34626533 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2021-0040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 08/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Over the last two decades, breast cancer remains the main cause of cancer deaths in women. To treat this type of cancer, radiation therapy (RT) has proved to be efficient. RT for breast cancer is, however, challenged by intrafractional motion caused by respiration. The problem is more severe for the left-sided breast cancer due to the proximity to the heart as an organ-at-risk. While particle therapy results in superior dose characteristics than conventional RT, due to the physics of particle interactions in the body, particle therapy is more sensitive to target motion. Conclusions This review highlights current and emerging strategies for the management of intrafractional target motion in breast cancer treatment with an emphasis on particle therapy, as a modern RT technique. There are major challenges associated with transferring real-time motion monitoring technologies from photon to particles beams. Surface imaging would be the dominant imaging modality for real-time intrafractional motion monitoring for breast cancer. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance and ultra high dose rate (FLASH)-RT seem to be state-of-the-art approaches to deal with 4D RT for breast cancer.
Collapse
|
16
|
Mutter RW, Choi JI, Jimenez RB, Kirova YM, Fagundes M, Haffty BG, Amos RA, Bradley JA, Chen PY, Ding X, Carr AM, Taylor LM, Pankuch M, Vega RBM, Ho AY, Nyström PW, McGee LA, Urbanic JJ, Cahlon O, Maduro JH, MacDonald SM. Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:337-359. [PMID: 34048815 PMCID: PMC8416711 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.05.110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Recent years have seen improvements in breast cancer survival and a greater appreciation of potential long-term morbidity associated with the dose and volume of irradiated organs. Proton therapy reduces the dose to nontarget structures while optimizing target coverage. However, there remain additional financial costs associated with proton therapy, despite reductions over time, and studies have yet to demonstrate that protons improve upon the treatment outcomes achieved with photon radiation therapy. There remains considerable heterogeneity in proton patient selection and techniques, and the rapid technological advances in the field have the potential to affect evidence evaluation, given the long latency period for breast cancer radiation therapy recurrence and late effects. In this consensus statement, we assess the data available to the radiation oncology community of proton therapy for breast cancer, provide expert consensus recommendations on indications and technique, and highlight ongoing trials' cost-effectiveness analyses and key areas for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Rachel B Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Youlia M Kirova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Marcio Fagundes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Bruce G Haffty
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Richard A Amos
- Proton and Advanced Radiotherapy Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Peter Y Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Antoinette M Carr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Leslie M Taylor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Medicine Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois
| | | | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Petra Witt Nyström
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden and the Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - James J Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, UC San Diego Health, Encinitas, California
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John H Maduro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Meattini I, Poortmans PM, Aznar MC, Becherini C, Bonzano E, Cardinale D, Lenihan DJ, Marrazzo L, Curigliano G, Livi L. Association of Breast Cancer Irradiation With Cardiac Toxic Effects: A Narrative Review. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:924-932. [PMID: 33662107 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE To promptly recognize and manage cardiovascular (CV) risk factors before, during, and after cancer treatment, decreasing the risk of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction is crucial. After recent advances in breast cancer treatment, mortality rates from cancer have decreased, and the prevalence of survivors with a potentially higher CV disease risk has increased. Cardiovascular risks might be associated with the multimodal approach, including systemic therapies and breast radiotherapy (RT). OBSERVATIONS The heart disease risk seems to be higher in patients with tumors in the left breast, when other classic CV risk factors are present, and when adjunctive anthracycline-based chemotherapy is administered, suggesting a synergistic association. Respiratory control as well as modern RT techniques and their possible further refinement may decrease the prevalence and severity of radiation-induced heart disease. Several pharmacological cardioprevention strategies for decreasing cardiac toxic effects have been identified in several guidelines. However, further research is needed to ascertain the feasibility of these strategies in routine practice. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This review found that evidence-based recommendations are lacking on the modalities for and intensity of heart disease screening, surveillance of patients after RT, and treatment of these patients. A multidisciplinary and multimodal approach is crucial to guide optimal management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Philip M Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Kankernetwerk, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
- University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Marianne Camille Aznar
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Carlotta Becherini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Elisabetta Bonzano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) San Matteo Polyclinic Foundation, Pavia, Italy
- PhD School in Experimental Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | - Daniela Cardinale
- Cardioncology Unit, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniel J Lenihan
- Cardio-Oncology Center of Excellence, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Livia Marrazzo
- Medical Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Curigliano
- Division of Early Drug Development, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Musielak M, Suchorska WM, Fundowicz M, Milecki P, Malicki J. Future Perspectives of Proton Therapy in Minimizing the Toxicity of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11050410. [PMID: 34068305 PMCID: PMC8153289 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11050410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2021] [Revised: 05/10/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The toxicity of radiotherapy is a key issue when analyzing the eligibility criteria for patients with breast cancer. In order to obtain better results, proton therapy is proposed because of the more favorable distribution of the dose in the patient’s body compared with photon radiotherapy. Scientific groups have conducted extensive research into the improved efficacy and lower toxicity of proton therapy for breast cancer. Unfortunately, there is no complete insight into the potential reasons and prospects for avoiding undesirable results. Cardiotoxicity is considered challenging; however, researchers have not presented any realistic prospects for preventing them. We compared the clinical evidence collected over the last 20 years, providing the rationale for the consideration of proton therapy as an effective solution to reduce cardiotoxicity. We analyzed the parameters of the dose distribution (mean dose, Dmax, V5, and V20) in organs at risk, such as the heart, blood vessels, and lungs, using the following two irradiation techniques: whole breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation. Moreover, we presented the possible causes of side effects, taking into account biological and technical issues. Finally, we collected potential improvements in higher quality predictions of toxic cardiac effects, like biomarkers, and model-based approaches to give the full background of this complex issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marika Musielak
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Radiobiology Laboratory, Department of Medical Physics, 61-866 Poznan, Poland
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +48-505372290
| | - Wiktoria M. Suchorska
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Radiobiology Laboratory, Department of Medical Physics, 61-866 Poznan, Poland
| | | | - Piotr Milecki
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Radiotherapy Ward I, 61-866 Poznan, Poland;
| | - Julian Malicki
- Electro-Radiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland; (W.M.S.); (P.M.); (J.M.)
- Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Medical Physics Department, 61-866 Poznan, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Choi JI, Fox J, Bakst R, Hasan S, Press RH, Chhabra AM, Yeh B, Simone CB, Cahlon O. Proton Therapy for Partial Breast Irradiation: Rationale and Considerations. J Pers Med 2021; 11:289. [PMID: 33918662 PMCID: PMC8069416 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11040289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
In an era of continued advancements in personalized medicine for the treatment of breast cancer, select patients with early stage breast cancer may be uniquely poised to benefit from partial breast irradiation (PBI) delivered with proton therapy. PBI presents an opportunity to improve quality of life during treatment with a significantly shorter treatment duration. By targeting less non-target breast tissue, excess radiation exposure and resulting toxicities are also reduced. Proton therapy represents a precision radiotherapy technology that builds on these advantages by further limiting the normal tissue exposure to unnecessary radiation dose not only to uninvolved breast tissue but also the underlying thoracic organs including the heart and lungs. Herein, we present a concise review of the rationale for the use of proton therapy for PBI, evidence available to date, and practical considerations in the implementation and use of proton therapy for this indication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10065, USA; (C.B.S.II); (O.C.)
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Jana Fox
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10467, USA
| | - Richard Bakst
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Shaakir Hasan
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10467, USA
| | - Robert H. Press
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Arpit M. Chhabra
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Brian Yeh
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10065, USA; (C.B.S.II); (O.C.)
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY 10065, USA; (C.B.S.II); (O.C.)
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (J.F.); (R.B.); (S.H.); (R.H.P.); (A.M.C.); (B.Y.)
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Gaito S, Abravan A, Richardson J, Lowe M, Indelicato DJ, Burnet N, Smith E. Skin Toxicity Profile of Photon Radiotherapy versus Proton Beam Therapy in Paediatric and Young Adult Patients with Sarcomas. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:507-516. [PMID: 33820695 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Revised: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Radiotherapy is key in the management of patients with both Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma. However, there is little evidence in the literature with regards to radiation-induced skin toxicities (RISTs) for patients treated with conventional radiotherapy with X-rays (XRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT) for these two conditions. In the present study we evaluated acute and late RIST in patients treated within European protocols with either PBT or XRT, taking both clinical and dosimetric variables into consideration. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of 79 paediatric/young adult patients treated with radical radiotherapy (with XRT or PBT) and concurrent chemotherapy. In all cases, radiotherapy was given in conventional fractionation (1.8 Gy/fraction). Acute and late RISTs were registered according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system. RESULTS With regards to acute RIST, 47.9% (23/48) of XRT patients and 48.4% (15/31) of PBT patients had acute grade 2/3 toxicity. When it comes to late RIST, 17.5% (7/40 with known toxicity profile) of XRT patients and 29.0% (9/31) of PBT patients had grade 1/2 toxicity. This difference of -11.5% (95% confidence interval -31.2 to 7.9%) in grade 1/2 toxicity between XRT and PBT was not statistically significant (P = 0.25). Regardless of the radiotherapy technique, V30Gy seems a good predictor of acute RIST. Moreover, for the same value of V30Gy, patients who receive PBT may have a higher risk of moderate-severe acute RIST. Perhaps due to the small sample, definitive conclusions on the predictive factors of late RIST could not be drawn. CONCLUSIONS No clinically meaningful differences in acute and late RIST were observed between PBT and XRT subgroups. Systematic differences in the modelling of the build-up region may exist between XRT and PBT algorithms, which could make the comparison of dose metrics between techniques potentially biased. A more comprehensive analysis of dosimetric data on larger patient cohorts is needed to elucidate the most relevant skin dose metrics. Dose-effect models of RIST for this unique patient population would be an invaluable tool in radiotherapy plan optimisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Gaito
- Clinical Oncology, Proton Beam Therapy Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
| | - A Abravan
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - J Richardson
- Medical Physics and Engineering, Proton Beam Therapy Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - M Lowe
- Medical Physics and Engineering, Proton Beam Therapy Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D J Indelicato
- University of Florida Department of Radiation Oncology, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - N Burnet
- Clinical Oncology, Proton Beam Therapy Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - E Smith
- Clinical Oncology, Proton Beam Therapy Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Laplana M, Cozzi S, Najjari D, Martín MI, Rodríguez G, Slocker A, Sancho I, Pla MJ, García M, Gracia R, Pera J, Guedea F, Gutiérrez C. Five-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation: A single-institution retrospective review of 289 cases. Brachytherapy 2021; 20:807-17. [PMID: 33810984 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2020] [Revised: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of the study was to describe our institutional experience with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using multicatheter brachytherapy with high-dose-rate. We report 5-year survival outcomes, cosmesis, and treatment-related toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS This included a retrospective review of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery followed by APBI at our institution from 2004 to 2017. RESULTS A total of 289 patients were evaluated. Median followup was 72 months. Median age was 70 years. APBI was the only primary treatment in 86.2% of cases with early-stage breast cancer and a second conservative treatment in 13.8%. The implant was performed postoperatively in 213 patients (73.7%) and intraoperatively in 76 (26.3%). The most common radiation schemes were 10 fractions of 3.4 Gy and eight fractions of 4 Gy. Elderly or frail patients (10%) received a single 16 Gy dose. Of the 289 patients, 215 met Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology criteria for APBI; in this group, late side effects included Grade 2 (G2) fibrosis (14.8%), skin discoloration at the catheter points (8.8%), and telangiectasia (0.5%). The cosmetic result was considered excellent or good in 88.3% of cases. Five-year local control, disease-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival rates were 98.9%, 96.7%, 99.1%, and 95.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Local control and survival outcomes at 5 years of followup in this group of well-selected patients were excellent, with low rates of treatment-related toxicity. These findings confirm the safety and effectiveness of APBI, even in elderly and frail patients. These results provide further support for the clinical use of APBI in suitable patients.
Collapse
|
22
|
Mészáros N, Major T, Stelczer G, Jánváry L, Zaka Z, Pukancsik D, Takácsi-Nagy Z, Md JF, Polgár C. Accelerated partial breast irradiation with 3-dimensional conformal and image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy following breast conserving surgery - 7-Year results of a phase II trial. Breast 2020; 54:222-228. [PMID: 33161336 PMCID: PMC7648201 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2020] [Revised: 10/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To present the 7-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) and image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Patients and methods Between 2006 and 2014, 104 patients were treated with APBI given by means of 3D-CRT using 3–5 non-coplanar, isocentric wedged fields, or IG-IMRT using kV-CBCT. The total dose of APBI was 36.9 Gy (9 × 4.1 Gy) using twice-a-day fractionation. Survival results, side effects and cosmetic results were assessed. Results At a median follow-up of 90 months three (2.9%) local recurrences, one (0.9%) regional recurrence and two (1.9%) distant metastases were observed. The 7-year local (LRFS), recurrence free survival was 98.9%. The 7-year disease-free (DFS), metastases free (MFS) and overall survival (OS) was 94.8%, 97.9% and 94.8%, respectively. Late side effects included G1 skin toxicity in 15 (14.4%), G1, G2, and G3 fibrosis in 26 (25%), 3 (2.9%) and 1 (0.9%) patients respectively. Asymptomatic (G1) fat necrosis occurred in 10 (9.6%) patients. No ≥ G2 or higher late side effects occurred with IMRT. The rate of excellent/good and fair/poor cosmetic results was 93.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Conclusion 7-year results of APBI with 3D-CRT and IG-IMRT are encouraging. Toxicity profile and local tumor control are comparable to other series using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy. Therefore, these external beam APBI techniques are valid alternatives to whole breast irradiation and brachytherapy based APBI. Phase II APBI trial using 3D-CRT or IG-IMRT. Twice-a-day fractionation, with a total dose of 36.9 Gy (9 × 4.1Gy). No Grade 2 or worst late side effects with IG-IMRT at median follow up of 90 months. These APBI techniques are valid alternatives to WBI or brachytherapy based APBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Norbert Mészáros
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.
| | - Tibor Major
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Gábor Stelczer
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary.
| | - Levente Jánváry
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Zoltán Zaka
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Dávid Pukancsik
- Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Zoltán Takácsi-Nagy
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
| | - János Fodor Md
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Csaba Polgár
- Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Pasalic D, Strom EA, Allen PK, Williamson TD, Poenisch F, Amos RA, Woodward WA, Stauder MC, Shaitelman SF, Smith BD, Perkins GH, Tereffe W, Hoffman KE. Proton Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: Clinical Outcomes at a Planned Interim Analysis of a Prospective Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:441-448. [PMID: 32946965 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.09.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform a planned interim analysis of acute (within 12 months) and late (after 12 months) toxicities and cosmetic outcomes after proton accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 100 patients with pTis or pT1-2 N0 (≤3cm) breast cancer status after segmental mastectomy were enrolled in a single-arm phase 2 study from 2010 to 2019. The clinically determined postlumpectomy target volume, including tumor bed surgical clips and operative-cavity soft-tissue changes seen on imaging plus a radial clinical expansion, was irradiated with passively scattered proton APBI (34 Gy in 10 fractions delivered twice daily with a minimum 6-hour interfraction interval). Patients were evaluated at protocol-specific time intervals for recurrence, physician reports of cosmetic outcomes and toxicities, and patient reports of cosmetic outcomes and satisfaction with the treatment or experience. RESULTS Median follow-up was 24 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12-43 months). Local control and overall survival were 100% at 12 and 24 months. There were no acute or late toxicities of grade 3 or higher; no patients experienced fat necrosis, fibrosis, infection, or breast shrinkage. Excellent or good cosmesis at 12 months was reported by 91% of patients and 94% of physicians; at the most recent follow-up, these were 94% and 87%, respectively. The most commonly reported late cosmetic effect was telangiectasis (17%). The total patient satisfaction rate for treatment and results at 12 and 24 months was 96% and 100%, respectively. Patients' mean time away from work was 5 days (IQR, 2-5 days), and the median out-of-pocket cost was $700 (IQR, $100-$1600). The mean left-sided heart dose was 2 cGy (range, 0.2-75 cGy), and the mean ipsilateral lung dose was 19 cGy (range, 0.2-164 cGy). CONCLUSIONS Proton APBI is a maturing treatment option with high local control, favorable intermediate-term cosmesis, high treatment satisfaction, low treatment burden, and exceptional heart and lung sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dario Pasalic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric A Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas.
| | - Pamela K Allen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Tyler D Williamson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Falk Poenisch
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Richard A Amos
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas; Department of Proton and Advanced Radiation Therapy Group, Department of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael C Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - George H Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Welela Tereffe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Abstract
For early-stage breast cancer, partial breast irradiation (PBI) allows for reduction in the irradiated volume of normal tissues by confining the radiation target to the area surrounding the lumpectomy cavity after breast-conserving surgery. This approach has been supported by phase 2 data. However, widespread adoption of PBI has awaited the results of randomized controlled trials. This review discusses the results of randomized controlled trials comparing whole breast irradiation to PBI, including the recently published National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B39/Radiotherapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0413, and the Canadian RAPID trials. PBI techniques, dose/fractionation schedules, and patient selection are also reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaroslaw T Hepel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.
| | - David E Wazer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Hwang EJ, Gorayski P, Le H, Hanna GG, Kenny L, Penniment M, Buck J, Thwaites D, Ahern V. Particle therapy toxicity outcomes: A systematic review. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2020; 64:725-737. [PMID: 32421259 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2019] [Revised: 03/17/2020] [Accepted: 03/19/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Owing to its physical properties, particle therapy (PT), including proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon ion therapy (CIT), can enhance the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. The major factor driving PT implementation is the reduction in exit and integral dose compared to photon plans, which is expected to translate to reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. This study extends the findings from a recent systematic review by the current authors which concentrated on tumour outcomes for PT, to now examine toxicity as a separate focus. Together, these reviews provide a comprehensive collation of the evidence relating to PT outcomes in clinical practice. Three major databases were searched by two independent researchers, and evidence quality was classified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. One hundred and seventy-nine studies were included. Most demonstrated acceptable and favourable toxicity results. Comparative evidence reported reduced morbidities and improvement in quality of life in head and neck, paediatrics, sarcomas, adult central nervous system, gastrointestinal, ocular and prostate cancers compared to photon radiotherapy. This suggestion for reduced morbidity must be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence. A concerted effort in the design of appropriate comparative clinical trials is needed which takes into account integration of PT's pace of technological advancements, including evolving delivery techniques, image guidance availability and sophistication of planning algorithms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Ji Hwang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Medicine, Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter Gorayski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Hien Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Gerard G Hanna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum, Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Liz Kenny
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Michael Penniment
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jacqueline Buck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - David Thwaites
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Verity Ahern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Mutter RW, Jethwa KR, Gonuguntla K, Remmes NB, Whitaker TJ, Hieken TJ, Ruddy KJ, McGee LA, Corbin KS, Park SS. 3 fraction pencil-beam scanning proton accelerated partial breast irradiation: early provider and patient reported outcomes of a novel regimen. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:211. [PMID: 31752934 PMCID: PMC6873533 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1417-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Accepted: 11/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose To report dosimetry and early adverse effects, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of a prospective study of 3-fraction pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton accelerated partial irradiation (APBI). Materials and methods Eligibility included women age ≥ 50 years with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), sentinel lymph node negative invasive or in-situ breast cancer measuring ≤2.5 cm. The prescription was 21.9 Gy (RBE 1.1) in 3 daily fractions to the post-operative tumor bed with a 1 cm expansion. Toxicities were collected using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, 10-point Linear Analog Scale Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the CTCAE, and the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale. Results Seventy-six women were treated between 2015 and 2017. The median breast volume receiving 50% of prescription or more was 28%. Median mean heart, mean ipsilateral lung, and maximum skin dose were 0 Gy, 0.1 Gy, and 20.6 Gy, respectively. With a median follow-up of 12 months, no treatment-related toxicity grade ≥ 2 has been observed. Most common grade 1 adverse events were dermatitis (68%) and skin hyperpigmentation (18%). At 12 months, the only persistent toxicities were one patient with grade 1 breast edema and one patient with a grade 1 seroma. 90% of patients reported quality of life as ≥7 out of 10 (0 indicating “as bad as it can be” and 10 indicating “as good as it can be”) and 98% of patients reported excellent or good cosmesis. Conclusion 3-fraction PBS proton APBI is well tolerated with low rates of physician and patient reported early adverse effects. Follow-up is ongoing to assess late toxicities and disease control outcomes. Further investigation of this novel adjuvant treatment strategy is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Karthik Gonuguntla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Nicholas B Remmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Thomas J Whitaker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Ofuya M, McParland L, Murray L, Brown S, Sebag-Montefiore D, Hall E. Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2019; 19:17-26. [PMID: 31372521 PMCID: PMC6660607 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2019] [Revised: 07/05/2019] [Accepted: 07/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mercy Ofuya
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lucy McParland
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Louise Murray
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Leeds Institute of Molecular Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - David Sebag-Montefiore
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
|
29
|
Zhao H, Williams N, Poppe M, Sarkar V, Wang B, Rassiah-Szegedi P, Huang YJ, Kokeny K, Gaffney D, Salter B. Comparison of surface guidance and target matching for image-guided accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Med Phys 2019; 46:4717-4724. [PMID: 31509632 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13816] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2019] [Revised: 08/15/2019] [Accepted: 08/15/2019] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We investigate the feasibility of surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) by comparing it with in-room, fan beam kV computed tomography on rails (CTOR) imaging of the targeted region. The uniqueness of our study is that all patients have multiple daily CTOR scans to compare corresponding SGRT AlignRT (VisionRT, United Kingdom) images to. METHODS/MATERIALS Twelve patients receiving APBI were enrolled in this study. Before each treatment fraction, after patients were setup on tattoos, SGRT was performed using AlignRT, and then target matching was performance using CTOR. The average and maximum difference in shifts between SGRT and CTOR were calculated and analyzed for each patient, so as the correlation between surgical cavity size and shift difference. RESULTS Our study showed that SGRT agreed well with CTOR for patients with small surgical cavity volume changes (<10%). There were nine patients who had a ≥5 mm maximum shift difference between SGRT and CTOR along any direction, and in two patients the difference was more than 10 mm (one patient with surgical cavity change 44.3% and one patient with 27 cc cavity volume decrease). All patients, except one, had a mean shift difference < 5 mm along any direction. CONCLUSION For the patients studied here, SGRT appears to be a reasonable and potentially valuable image guidance approach for APBI for patients who experience small changes in surgical cavity volume (<10%) between CT simulation and treatment. However, there is potential for larger alignment errors (up to 11 mm) when using SGRT for patients who experience larger surgical cavity changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Zhao
- University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
| | - Ned Williams
- San Antonio Military Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Dr, Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA
| | | | | | - Brian Wang
- University of Louisville, 2301 S 3rd St, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Bill Salter
- University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Wilkinson JB, Chen PY, Wallace MF, Shah CS, Benitez PR, Martinez AA, Vicini FA. Six-Year Results From a Phase I/II Trial for Hypofractionated Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Using a 2-Day Dose Schedule. Am J Clin Oncol 2018; 41:986-91. [PMID: 28787281 DOI: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To report 6-year outcomes from a phase I/II trial using balloon-based brachytherapy to deliver APBI in 2 days. METHODS A total of 45 patients with early-stage breast cancer received adjuvant APBI in 2 days with high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy totaling 2800 cGy in 4 fractions (700 cGy BID) using a balloon-based applicator as part of a prospective phase I/II clinical trial. All patients had negative margins and skin spacing ≥8 mm. We evaluated toxicities (CTCAE v3) as well as ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), regional nodal failure (RNF), distant metastasis, disease-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS Median age and tumor size were 66 years old (48 to 83) and 0.8 cm (0.2 to 2.3 cm), respectively. Four percent of patients were N1 (n=2) and 73% were estrogen receptor (ER) positive (n=32). Median follow-up was 6.2 years (2.4 to 8.0 y). Nearly all toxicities at 6 years were grade 1 to 2 except 1 instance of grade 3 telangiectasia (2%). Eleven percent (n=5) of patients had chronic asymptomatic fat necrosis whereas asymptomatic seromas were noted on mammogram in 13% of cases (n=6). Cosmesis at last follow-up was good or excellent in 91% of cases (n=40) and fair in 9% (n=4). Two of the previously reported rib fractures healed with conservative measures. There were no IBTR or RNF (6 y IBTR/RNF rate 0%); however, 2 patients experienced distant metastasis (4% at 6 y). The 6-year actuarial disease-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival were 96%, 100%, and 93%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Hypofractionated 2-day APBI using brachytherapy resulted in excellent clinical outcomes with acceptable chronic toxicities.
Collapse
|
31
|
Shah C, Vicini F. Accelerated partial breast irradiation-Redefining the treatment target for women with early stage breast cancer. Breast J 2019; 25:408-417. [PMID: 30950133 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2018] [Revised: 06/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/19/2018] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Following breast conserving surgery, the standard of care has been to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy directed to the whole breast (WBI) over a period of 3-7 weeks. Over the past decade, increasing data have supported the concept that treatment to the whole breast may not be required in selected patients, allowing for the emergence of partial breast irradiation (PBI). Multiple randomized trials with 5-10 years of follow-up have been published documenting the safety and efficacy associated with PBI using multiple techniques. Questions that remain to be answered include (a) what is the optimal PBI technique for each clinical scenario, (b) are there additional patients that can be effectively managed with PBI approaches, and (c) are there different techniques/dose schedules that allow for further reduction in treatment duration and/or toxicities? Partial breast irradiation represents a standard approach for appropriately selected patients. PBI provides comparable clinical outcomes to WBI while allowing for a reduction in the duration treatment and the potential for reduced toxicities. Future studies may also help to better define which patients require no radiation, PBI, hypofractionated WBI or conventional WBI, based upon patient, clinical, pathologic features as well as potentially using tumor genetics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chirag Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Frank Vicini
- 21st Century Oncology, Michigan Healthcare Professionals, Farmington Hills, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wang K, Yee C, Tam S, Drost L, Chan S, Zaki P, Rico V, Ariello K, Dasios M, Lam H, DeAngelis C, Chow E. Prevalence of pain in patients with breast cancer post-treatment: A systematic review. Breast 2018; 42:113-127. [DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.08.105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2018] [Revised: 08/08/2018] [Accepted: 08/27/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
|
33
|
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy confers significant dosimetric advantages in the treatment of malignancies that arise adjacent to critical radiosensitive structures. To date, these advantages have been most prominent in the treatment of pediatric and central nervous system malignancies, although emerging data support the use of protons among other anatomical sites in which radiotherapy plays an important role. With advances in the overall treatment paradigm for breast cancer, most patients with localized disease now exhibit long-term disease control and, consequently, may manifest the late toxicities of aggressive treatment. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the mitigation of iatrogenic morbidity, with particular attention to heart and lung exposure in those receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Indeed, recent landmark analyses have demonstrated an increase in significant cardiac events that is linked directly to low-dose radiation to the heart. Coupled with practice-changing trials that have expanded the indications for comprehensive regional nodal irradiation, there exists significant interest in employing novel technologies to mitigate cardiac dose while improving target volume coverage. Proton radiotherapy enjoys distinct physical advantages over photon-based approaches and, in appropriately selected patients, markedly improves both target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Here, we review the dosimetric evidence that underlies the putative benefits of proton radiotherapy, and further synthesize early clinical evidence that supports the efficacy and feasibility of proton radiation in breast cancer. Landmark, prospective randomized trials are underway and will ultimately define the role for protons in the treatment of this disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lior Z Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Langendijk JA, Boersma LJ, Rasch CRN, van Vulpen M, Reitsma JB, van der Schaaf A, Schuit E. Clinical Trial Strategies to Compare Protons With Photons. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28:79-87. [PMID: 29735194 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The favorable beam properties of protons can be translated into clinical benefits by target dose escalation to improve local control without enhancing unacceptable radiation toxicity or to spare normal tissues to prevent radiation-induced side effects without jeopardizing local tumor control. For the clinical validation of the added value of protons to improve local control, randomized controlled trials are required. For the clinical validation of the added value of protons to prevent side effects, both model-based validation or randomized controlled trials can be used. Model-based patient selection for proton therapy is crucial, independent of the validation approach. Combining these approaches in rapid learning health care systems is expected to yield the most efficient and scientifically sound way to continuously improve patient selection and the therapeutic window, eventually leading to more cancer survivors with better quality of life.
Collapse
|
35
|
Chan TY, Tang JI, Tan PW, Roberts N. Dosimetric evaluation and systematic review of radiation therapy techniques for early stage node-negative breast cancer treatment. Cancer Manag Res 2018; 10:4853-4870. [PMID: 30425577 PMCID: PMC6205528 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s172818] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) is essential in treating women with early stage breast cancer. Early stage node-negative breast cancer (ESNNBC) offers a good prognosis; hence, late effects of breast RT becomes increasingly important. Recent literature suggests a potential for an increase in cardiac and pulmonary events after RT. However, these studies have not taken into account the impact of newer and current RT techniques that are now available. Hence, this review aimed to evaluate the clinical evidence for each technique and determine the optimal radiation technique for ESNNBC treatment. Currently, six RT techniques are consistently used and studied: 1) prone positioning, 2) proton beam RT, 3) intensity-modulated RT, 4) breath-hold, 5) partial breast irradiation, and 6) intraoperative RT. These techniques show dosimetric promise. However, limited data on late cardiac and pulmonary events exist due to challenges in long-term follow-up. Moving forward, future studies are needed to validate the efficacy and clinical outcomes of these current techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tabitha Y Chan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, Singapore,
| | - Johann I Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, Singapore,
| | - Poh Wee Tan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, Singapore,
| | - Neill Roberts
- Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Yoshida K, Otani Y, Nose T, Yoden E, Asahi S, Tsukiyama I, Dokiya T, Saeki T, Fukuda I, Sekine H, Kumazaki Y, Takahashi T, Kotsuma T, Masuda N, Nakashima K, Matsumura T, Nakagawa S, Tachiiri S, Moriguchi Y, Itami J, Oguchi M. Case report of a dose-volume histogram analysis of rib fracture after accelerated partial breast irradiation: interim analysis of a Japanese prospective multi-institutional feasibility study. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10:274-8. [PMID: 30038649 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2018.76983] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2018] [Accepted: 05/22/2018] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
We initiated the first multi-institutional prospective study of accelerated partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer in Japan. Our early clinical results showed that the treatment methods were technically reproducible between institutions and showed excellent disease control at a median follow-up of 26 months in our previous report. At present, total 46 patients from six institutions underwent the treatment regimen from October 2009 to December 2011, and the median follow-up time was 60 months (range, 57-67 months). In 46 patients, we experienced one patient who had rib fracture as a late complication. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) result of this patient was analyzed. The D0.01cc, D0.1cc, and D1cc values of the patient were 913, 817, and 664 cGy per fraction, respectively. These values were the highest values in 46 patients. The average D0.01cc, D0.1cc, and D1cc values of the other 45 patients were 546, 500, and 419, respectively, cGy per fraction. From this result, DVH values showing high-dose irradiated volume (D0.01cc, D0.1cc, and D1cc) seem to be a good predictive factor of rib fracture for accelerated partial breast irradiation. However, further investigation is necessary because of the small number of patients investigated.
Collapse
|
37
|
Ovalle V, Strom EA, Shaitelman S, Hoffman K, Amos R, Perkins G, Tereffe W, Smith BD, Stauder M, Woodward W. Proton Partial Breast Irradiation: Detailed Description of Acute Clinico-Radiologic Effects. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10:E111. [PMID: 29642467 DOI: 10.3390/cancers10040111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2018] [Revised: 03/26/2018] [Accepted: 04/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with protons results in a very different acute effect profile than standard whole breast irradiation. We reviewed our initial experience with proton APBI and felt that a detailed description of these effects were needed to permit a common tool to compare experience with this developing technology. Methods: Sixty sequential patients treated with proton APBI on a prospective protocol were evaluated and 43 patients with a minimum six-month follow-up underwent detailed photographic and radiologic analysis. The tumorectomy cavity plus an additional 1.5 cm clinical target volume (CTV) was treated with two or three passively-scattered proton beams to a dose of 34 Gy in 10 fractions in one week. Photographs were taken at the end of radiation, at two weeks, six weeks, and every six months thereafter. Mammography was obtained at six months after radiation and annually thereafter. All visual changes were categorized using the smallest meaningful gradations in findings and are demonstrated herein. All treatment-related mammographic findings are reported. Findings: Visual and mammographic findings showed a clear time-dependent relationship and significant variation between individuals. Peak skin reaction occurred at two to six weeks after completion of therapy. At two weeks most patients had either no visible effects and patchy erythema involving <50% of the treated skin (60%). At six weeks most patients had either patchy erythema involving <50% of the overlying skin (33%) or patchy erythema involving >50% of the treated skin (28%). Only one patient developed any moist desquamation. At six months most patients had no visible skin changes (57%) or a small, circular area of mild hyperpigmentation (33%). Mammographic changes seen at six months were regional skin thickening (40%), residual seroma (14%), localized retraction (26%), and fat necrosis (2%). A subcategorized variant on the CTCAE 4.0 was developed to foster granular recording of these findings.
Collapse
|
38
|
Verma V, Simone CB, Mishra MV. Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Proton Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110:4430583. [PMID: 29028221 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2017] [Accepted: 09/05/2017] [Indexed: 09/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Background As costs of cancer care rise, the importance of documenting value in oncology increases. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has the potential to reduce toxicities in cancer patients, but is relatively expensive and unproven. Evaluating quality of life (QOL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential to establishing PBT's "value" in oncologic therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to assess QOL and PROs in patients treated with PBT. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic searches were conducted. The PubMed search engine was the primary data source, along with publications found from references of selected articles, and articles known to the authors published through 2017. Seventeen original investigations were found to have sufficient focus and relevance to be incorporated into the systematic review. Results Studies of skull base (n = 1), brain (n = 1), head/neck (n = 1), lung (n = 1), breast (n = 2), prostate (n = 8), and pediatric (n = 3) malignancies treated with PBT that met eligibility criteria were included. QOL did not deteriorate during PBT for skull base and after PBT for brain tumors, respectively. PROs were higher for PBT than photon-based radiotherapy for both head/neck and lung cancer. Patient-reported breast cosmesis was appropriate after PBT and comparable to photon modalities. PBT in various settings of prostate cancer displayed an expected post-therapy decline; one study showed improved PROs (rectal urgency, bowel frequency) for PBT, and two others showed PROs/QOL comparable with other modalities. Pediatric studies demonstrated improvements in QOL during therapy, with additional increases thereafter. Conclusions Based on limited data, PBT provides favorable QOL/PRO profiles for select brain, head/neck, lung, and pediatric cancers; measures for prostate and breast cancers were more modest. These results have implications for cost-effective cancer care and prudently designed QOL evaluation in ongoing trials, which are discussed. Future data could substantially change the conclusions of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek Verma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Mark V Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Abstract
As the number of patients cured from breast cancer increases with improvements in multidisciplinary care, emphasis on reducing late toxicities of treatment has increased, in order to improve long-term quality of life. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a form of radiotherapy that uses particles with unique physical properties that enable treatment delivery with minimal dose deposition beyond the treatment target. Therefore, PBT has emerged as an exciting radiotherapy modality for breast cancer due to the ability to minimize exposure to the heart, lungs, muscle, and bone. Herein, we review the rationale for PBT in breast cancer, potential clinical applications, and the available clinical data supporting its use. We also address some of the technical and logistical challenges and areas of ongoing research that will ultimately establish the role for PBT for breast cancer in the years ahead.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Shah C, Vicini F, Shaitelman SF, Hepel J, Keisch M, Arthur D, Khan AJ, Kuske R, Patel R, Wazer DE. The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation. Brachytherapy 2018; 17:154-70. [DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2017.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 98] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2017] [Revised: 09/11/2017] [Accepted: 09/18/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
41
|
Kammerer E, Guevelou JL, Chaikh A, Danhier S, Geffrelot J, Levy C, Saloux E, Habrand JL, Thariat J. Proton therapy for locally advanced breast cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev 2018; 63:19-27. [PMID: 29197746 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2017] [Revised: 11/13/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiation therapy plays a major role in the management of adjuvant breast cancer with nodal involvement, with an iatrogenic increase of cardio-vascular risk. Photon therapy, even with intensity modulation, has the downsides of high mean heart dose and heterogeneous target coverage, particularly in the case of internal mammary irradiation. This systematic review of the literature aims to evaluate proton therapy in locally advanced breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS PubMed was searched for original full-text articles with the following search terms: «Proton Therapy» and «Breast Cancer». On-going trials were collected using the words "Breast Cancer" and "Protons". RESULTS 13 articles met the criteria: 6 with passive proton therapy (Double Scattering), 5 with Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) and 2 with a combination of both. Proton therapy offered a better target coverage than photons, even compared with intensity modulation radiation therapy (including static or rotational IMRT or tomotherapy). With proton therapy, volumes receiving 95% of the dose were around 98%, with low volumes receiving 105% of the dose. Proton therapy often decreased mean heart dose by a factor of 2 or 3, i.e. 1 Gy with proton therapy versus 3 Gy with conventional 3D, and 6 Gy for IMRT. Lungs were better spared with proton therapy than with photon therapy. Cutaneous toxicity observed with double scattering is improved with PBS. CONCLUSION Proton therapy reduces mean heart dose in breast cancer irradiation, probably reducing late cardio-vascular toxicity. Large clinical studies will likely confirm a clinical benefit of proton therapy.
Collapse
|
42
|
Takakusagi Y, Saitoh JI, Kiyohara H, Oike T, Noda SE, Ohno T, Nakano T. Predictive factors of acute skin reactions to carbon ion radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant bone and soft tissue tumors. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:185. [PMID: 29166945 PMCID: PMC5700693 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0927-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2017] [Accepted: 11/16/2017] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The skin is considered a critical organ at risk in carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for locally advanced malignant bone and soft tissue tumors (MBSTs). The predictive factors for acute skin reactions after CIRT have not been investigated. The present study aimed to identify these factors and evaluate the correlation between the severity of acute skin reactions and skin dose parameters. Methods CIRT with total doses of 64.0–70.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) was administered to 22 patients with MBSTs. The skin-tumor distance (STD), maximum skin total dose (Dmax), and area of the skin receiving a total dose of X Gy (RBE) were evaluated. Results All patients developed acute skin reactions after CIRT, including Grades 1 and 2 dermatitis in 15 (71%) and 6 (29%) patients, respectively. There was a significant difference in the STD between the two groups (P = 0.007), and the cut-off value of STD for predicting Grade 2 acute skin reactions was 11 mm. There was a significant difference in Dmax between the groups (P < 0.001), and the cut-off value of Dmax for predicting Grade 2 acute skin reactions was 52 Gy (RBE). Significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of the area irradiated with 40 Gy (RBE) (S40), and the cut-off value of S40 for predicting Grade 2 acute skin reactions was 25 cm2. Conclusions In acute skin reactions after CIRT for MBSTs, STD, Dmax, and S40 were found to be significant predictive factors for acute skin reactions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yosuke Takakusagi
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan
| | - Jun-Ichi Saitoh
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan. .,Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan.
| | - Hiroki Kiyohara
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan
| | - Takahiro Oike
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan
| | - Shin-Ei Noda
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan
| | - Tatsuya Ohno
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan
| | - Takashi Nakano
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Bradley JA, Ho MW, Li Z, Liang X, Rutenberg M, Dagan R, Mendenhall NP. A Technical Guide for Passive Scattering Proton Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2017; 3:473-484. [PMID: 31772997 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-16-00025.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2016] [Accepted: 02/06/2017] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Most patients treated with proton therapy have had eye tumors, sarcomas, or, more recently, pediatric, or prostate cancers. As more proton centers have developed globally, increased capacity will permit exploration of other potential indications for proton therapy, including for the treatment of breast cancer. The rationale for proton therapy in the treatment of breast cancer is reduced inadvertent radiation dose to the heart and lung, as well as improved target coverage. As with any new technology, multiple technical parameters require optimization to deliver safe and effective radiation therapy and to maximize the benefits of the new technology. The purpose of this report is to provide a technical guide for the treatment of breast cancer with passive-scattering proton therapy and an algorithm for selecting patients with breast cancer who would benefit from proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Meng Wei Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zuofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Michael Rutenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Roi Dagan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Pan HY, Jiang J, Shih YCT, Smith BD. Adoption of Radiation Technology Among Privately Insured Nonelderly Patients With Cancer in the United States, 2008 to 2014: A Claims-Based Analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 2017; 14:1027-1033.e2. [PMID: 28408078 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2017] [Revised: 02/17/2017] [Accepted: 02/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Despite enthusiasm for advanced radiation technologies, understanding of their adoption in recent years is limited. The aim of this study was to elucidate utilization trends of conventional radiation, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, proton radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using a large convenience sample of irradiated patients with cancer identified from private insurance claims in the United States. The unit of analysis was a claim corresponding to a fraction of delivered radiotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Each claim was assigned a disease site on the basis of the diagnosis code and a radiation technology on the basis of the procedure code. In 2014, conventional radiation and IMRT constituted 56% and 39% of all radiation treatment claims, respectively, while brachytherapy constituted 2%, proton radiotherapy 1%, SBRT 1%, and SRS <1%. Compared with the first quarter of 2008, the proportional contribution of conventional radiation and brachytherapy to all radiation claims each decreased by 16% in the fourth quarter of 2014. In contrast, proportional contribution increased by 32% for IMRT, 83% for proton radiotherapy, 124% for SRS, and 309% for SBRT. Prostate cancer constituted 60% of all proton claims in 2008 but declined to 37% by 2014. SBRT was used to treat a variety of disease sites, most commonly primary lung (25%), prostate (12%), secondary bone (9%), and secondary lung (9%), in 2014. In this claims-based analysis of younger patients with private insurance, conventional radiation and IMRT were the most commonly used technologies from 2008 to 2014, while SBRT showed the most robust growth over the study period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hubert Y Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jing Jiang
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ya-Chen Tina Shih
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
This review will focus on the indications, clinical experience, and technical considerations of proton beam radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. For patients with early stage disease, proton therapy delivers less dose to non-target breast tissue for patients receiving partial breast irradiation (PBI) therapy, which may result in improved cosmesis but requires further investigation. For patients with locally advanced breast cancer requiring treatment to the regional lymph nodes, proton therapy allows for an improved dosimetric profile compared with conventional photon and electron techniques. Early clinical results demonstrate acceptable toxicity. The possible reduction in cardiopulmonary events as a result of reduced dose to organs at risk will be tested in a randomized control trial of protons vs. photons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John J Cuaron
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Francis H. Burr Proton Therapy Center, Boston, MA 02114-7250, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Kirby A. Whole-Breast Irradiation Following Breast-Conserving Surgery for Invasive Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer 2017. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-48848-6_51] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
47
|
Sanford NN, Taghian AG. Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation. Breast Cancer 2017. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-48848-6_55] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
48
|
Yashar C, Attai D, Butler E, Einck J, Finkelstein S, Han B, Hong R, Komarnicky L, Lyden M, Mantz C, Morcovescu S, Nigh S, Perry K, Pollock J, Reiff J, Scanderbeg D, Snyder M, Kuske R. Strut-based accelerated partial breast irradiation: Report of treatment results for 250 consecutive patients at 5 years from a multicenter retrospective study. Brachytherapy 2016; 15:780-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2016.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2016] [Revised: 07/05/2016] [Accepted: 07/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
49
|
Chand-Fouché ME, Lam Cham Kee D, Gautier M, Hannoun-Levi JM. Technique d’irradiation partielle du sein : radiothérapie externe et curiethérapie. Cancer Radiother 2016; 20:587-94. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2016.07.087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2016] [Revised: 07/12/2016] [Accepted: 07/19/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
50
|
Abstract
Charged particle therapy has been largely driven and influenced by nuclear physics. The increase in energy deposition density along the ion path in the body allows reducing the dose to normal tissues during radiotherapy compared to photons. Clinical results of particle therapy support the physical rationale for this treatment, but the method remains controversial because of the high cost and of the lack of comparative clinical trials proving the benefit compared to x-rays. Research in applied nuclear physics, including nuclear interactions, dosimetry, image guidance, range verification, novel accelerators and beam delivery technologies, can significantly improve the clinical outcome in particle therapy. Measurements of fragmentation cross-sections, including those for the production of positron-emitting fragments, and attenuation curves are needed for tuning Monte Carlo codes, whose use in clinical environments is rapidly increasing thanks to fast calculation methods. Existing cross sections and codes are indeed not very accurate in the energy and target regions of interest for particle therapy. These measurements are especially urgent for new ions to be used in therapy, such as helium. Furthermore, nuclear physics hardware developments are frequently finding applications in ion therapy due to similar requirements concerning sensors and real-time data processing. In this review we will briefly describe the physics bases, and concentrate on the open issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Durante
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN), University of Trento, Via Sommarive 14, 38123 Povo (TN), Italy. Department of Physics, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|