Impact of Breast Volume on Achieving a Conservative Heart and Target Coverage Metric for Patients Receiving Whole Breast Radiotherapy in a Statewide Consortium

Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Date

10-1-2023

Publication Title

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

Abstract

Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation to large breast volumes (BV) has been associated with increased dose inhomogeneities, breast fibrosis, and induration. Radiation exposure to the heart during breast radiotherapy has been associated with late cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This study, therefore, investigates the impact of BV on achieving optimal lumpectomy cavity target coverage (V95% [%] >95) while maintaining mean heart dose constraints (MHD, mean [Gy] <1) across a range of BV from patients enrolled in a statewide consortium. Materials/Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 2,506 patients receiving left-sided whole breast moderately-hypofractionated (2.5-2.8 Gy/fx) radiotherapy without nodal fields between 2018-2022. The BV was calculated for each patient from contours in the treatment planning system, and the volume distribution partitioned into quartiles. Dosimetric parameters were calculated from dose-volume histograms. The percentage of patients in which the metrics were achieved was calculated for each BV quartile for different treatment positions: all positions, supine, supine with breathing motion management, and prone. Results: The BV ranges within the quartiles (∼620 patients/quartile) were ≤720.0 cc, 720.1 to ≤1065.0 cc, 1065.1 to ≤1500.0 cc, and >1500.0 cc for quartiles Q1-Q4, respectively. Of the 2,506 patients, 76% were treated supine (of which 41.6% were treated using breathing motion management techniques), 23.5% were treated prone, and 0.5% were treated decubitus. Discrete percentages of patients able to meet the metrics are provided in the table. An increase in BV from Q1 to Q4 correlated with lower percentages of patients meeting the MHD metric, however no correlation was observed between BV and target coverage. Treating supine with breathing motion management resulted in a higher percentage of patients meeting the MHD metric (odds ratio (OR) = 1.96 relative to supine without motion management, p<0.0001), while the prone setup proved to be the superior technique across all quartiles (OR = 3.95 relative to supine, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Increasing BVs resulted in lower percentages of patients receiving MHD≤1 Gy. Thus, cardiac sparing may be more difficult to achieve in patients with larger BV. Utilization of alternate treatment positions, such as supine with breathing motion management and prone, greatly improved the percentage of patients able to meet the MHD metric without sacrificing target coverage in all quartiles. Prone positioning was the technique least susceptible to BV effects in meeting the MHD≤1 Gy goal.

Volume

117

Issue

2

First Page

e193

Last Page

e194

Find It @ Sladen

Share

COinS