Search

Introduction: Various techniques for whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) have been reported to increase dose to contralateral tissues. Heart dose is of critical importance as there is no apparent dose threshold below which there is no risk. The aim of this study was to compare planning techniques for WBRT that achieves the best target dosimetry and lowest organ at risk (OAR) dose. Methods: Thirty early‐stage whole breast patient datasets, 15 each left‐ and right‐sided cases, were retrospectively selected. Five techniques were generated for each data set: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (HYI), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) – (HYV), reduced arc VMAT – bowtie (BT), and BT flattening filter free (FFF) – (BTFFF). Plan goals and OARs were evaluated and compared between techniques. Results: BT had the highest median conformity index (CI) values (0.82, IQR: 0.80–0.85 left and 0.83, IQR 0.80–0.86 right). BT recorded lower mean heart doses (median value 1.19Gy, IQR: 0.90–1.55), and BTFFF recorded lower heart V2.5 Gy, V5 Gy; median 3.96% (IQR: 2.90–6.80) and 0.90% (IQR: 0.50–1.50) respectively for left‐sided patients. There was a statistically significant difference in all ipsilateral lung measures, (p < 0.001) with BTFFF producing significantly lower doses across all measures: mean, V5 Gy, V10 Gy and V20 Gy. Conclusion: Overall BT and BTFFF techniques produced lower OAR doses and equivalent PTV coverage for WBRT. BT and BTFFF techniques increased contralateral lung and breast doses; however, these were within prescribed tolerances and comparable to results published in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) has been proven to reduce cardiac dose for women receiving left breast and chest wall radiation therapy. However, it utilises extra departmental resources and patient exertion. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate if any factors existed that could identify breast cancer patients who may benefit most from DIBH, to facilitate appropriate utilisation of departmental resources. Methods: Left‐sided breast cancer patients aged 18–70 years, and right‐sided breast cancer patients with internal mammary nodes included, were recruited. DIBH and free breathing (FB) plans were created for all patients. Patient demographic and clinical history were recorded. Variables including lung threshold value, lung volume, patient separation, maximum heart in field, volume of planning target volume (PTV), heart dose, ipsilateral lung dose were compared between plans. Results: Plans for 31 patients were analysed. No correlations were found between lung threshold value or patient separation and cardiac dose. Moderate to strong correlations were found with BMI, PTV volume and lung volume change however no definitive thresholds were determined. A significant difference was found in the maximum heart in field between DIBH and FB (P < 0.001) with those patients with greater than 0.7 cm heart in the field on the FB scan demonstrating greater reductions in mean heart dose. Conclusion: Maximum heart in the field of greater than 0.7 cm in FB could be a potential factor to identify patients who may benefit most from DIBH. This factor warrants investigation in a larger patient cohort to test its validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques.Methods: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants.Findings: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group.Interpretation: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group.Funding: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]