Sophie T. Behzadi , Mathias Duesberg , Rebecca Moser , Marciana-Nona Duma , Markus Oechsner , Sophia Kiesl , Jana Nano , Stephanie E. Combs , Kai J. Borm
{"title":"Incidental dose distribution to contralateral internal mammary nodes in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy","authors":"Sophie T. Behzadi , Mathias Duesberg , Rebecca Moser , Marciana-Nona Duma , Markus Oechsner , Sophia Kiesl , Jana Nano , Stephanie E. Combs , Kai J. Borm","doi":"10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>In a relevant number of primary breast cancer patients, lymphatic drainage to the contralateral internal mammary nodes (cIMN) is being observed. Nevertheless, so far lymphatic drainage pathway to the cIMN is largely neglected during adjuvant radiotherapy.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>This study evaluated the incidental dose to the cIMN for 120 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans for node positive breast in dependence of internal mammary node irradiation (IMNI) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH). Additionally, incidental dose distribution to the cIMN based on the field design in the MA20, EORTC22922/10925 and AMAROS trials was assessed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The incidental dose (Dmean ± SD) to the cIMN-CTV was 13.0 (±4.7) Gy with a maximum dose of < 30 Gy in 113/120 cases. If IMNI was included (n = 80), the Dmean to the cIMN-CTV was significantly higher compared to no IMNI, but still comparably low (n = 40; 14.3 Gy vs. 9.6 Gy; p = 0.0001). Furthermore, the dose in the cIMN during free breathing (n = 80) was higher compared to DIBH (n = 40; 13.9 Gy vs. 11.2 Gy; p = 0.002).</p><p>Simulated treatment plans based on the randomized RNI trials revealed neglectable dose coverage of the cIMN (Dmean 1.0–1.8 Gy) for all protocols.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Neither in the randomized RNI trials nor during contemporary treatment techniques clinically relevant dose distribution to the cIMN was observed. Further studies are warranted to assess the potential impact of intended irradiation of cIMN in high-risk patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10342,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 100831"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405630824001083/pdfft?md5=0e607623ee6962268087664721d4d66f&pid=1-s2.0-S2405630824001083-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405630824001083","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose
In a relevant number of primary breast cancer patients, lymphatic drainage to the contralateral internal mammary nodes (cIMN) is being observed. Nevertheless, so far lymphatic drainage pathway to the cIMN is largely neglected during adjuvant radiotherapy.
Materials and methods
This study evaluated the incidental dose to the cIMN for 120 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans for node positive breast in dependence of internal mammary node irradiation (IMNI) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH). Additionally, incidental dose distribution to the cIMN based on the field design in the MA20, EORTC22922/10925 and AMAROS trials was assessed.
Results
The incidental dose (Dmean ± SD) to the cIMN-CTV was 13.0 (±4.7) Gy with a maximum dose of < 30 Gy in 113/120 cases. If IMNI was included (n = 80), the Dmean to the cIMN-CTV was significantly higher compared to no IMNI, but still comparably low (n = 40; 14.3 Gy vs. 9.6 Gy; p = 0.0001). Furthermore, the dose in the cIMN during free breathing (n = 80) was higher compared to DIBH (n = 40; 13.9 Gy vs. 11.2 Gy; p = 0.002).
Simulated treatment plans based on the randomized RNI trials revealed neglectable dose coverage of the cIMN (Dmean 1.0–1.8 Gy) for all protocols.
Conclusion
Neither in the randomized RNI trials nor during contemporary treatment techniques clinically relevant dose distribution to the cIMN was observed. Further studies are warranted to assess the potential impact of intended irradiation of cIMN in high-risk patients.