Cargando…

Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma

OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of lymphoma and many patients with lymphoma are cured with treatment. Risk of secondary malignancy and long-term cardiac and pulmonary toxicity from mediastinal radiotherapy exists. Delivery of radiotherapy using a deep inspiration br...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Houlihan, Orla Anne, Rangaswamy, Guhan, Dunne, Mary, Rohan, Christine, O'Neill, Louise, Chalke, Shelton, Daly, Patricia, Gillham, Charles, McArdle, Orla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Institute of Radiology. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7931409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33718767
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20200067
_version_ 1783660287451201536
author Houlihan, Orla Anne
Rangaswamy, Guhan
Dunne, Mary
Rohan, Christine
O'Neill, Louise
Chalke, Shelton
Daly, Patricia
Gillham, Charles
McArdle, Orla
author_facet Houlihan, Orla Anne
Rangaswamy, Guhan
Dunne, Mary
Rohan, Christine
O'Neill, Louise
Chalke, Shelton
Daly, Patricia
Gillham, Charles
McArdle, Orla
author_sort Houlihan, Orla Anne
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of lymphoma and many patients with lymphoma are cured with treatment. Risk of secondary malignancy and long-term cardiac and pulmonary toxicity from mediastinal radiotherapy exists. Delivery of radiotherapy using a deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique increases lung volume and has the potential to reduce dose to heart and lungs. We undertook a prospective study to assess the dosimetric differences in DIBH and free breathing (FB) plans in patients requiring mediastinal radiotherapy in clinical practice. METHODS: We performed both FB and DIBH planning scans on 35 consecutive patients with mediastinal lymphoma needing radiotherapy. Contours and plans were generated for both data sets and dosimetric data were compared. All patients were planned using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Data were compared for FB and DIBH plans with each patient acting as their own control using the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: DIBH significantly reduced lung doses (mean 10.6 vs 11.4Gy, p < 0.0005; V20 16.8 vs 18.3%, p = 0.001) and spinal cord maximum dose (20.6 vs 22.8Gy, p = 0.001). DIBH increased breast V4 (38.5% vs 31.8%, p = 0.006) and mean right breast dose (4.2 vs 3.6Gy, p = 0.010). There was no significant difference in heart doses when the entire study cohort was considered, however, mean heart dose tended to be lower with DIBH for upper mediastinal (UM) tumours (4.3 vs 4.9Gy, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study describes the potential benefit of DIBH in a population reflective of clinical practice. DIBH can decrease radiation dose to lungs, heart and spinal cord, however, may increase dose to breasts. DIBH is not always superior to FB, and the clinical significance of differences in dose to organs at risk in addition to the time required to treat patients with DIBH must be considered when deciding the most appropriate radiotherapy technique for each patient. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: To our knowledge, this is the largest study comparing DIBH and FB planning for patients with lymphoma receiving mediastinal radiotherapy in clinical practice. It demonstrates the impact of an increasingly common radiotherapy technique on dose to organs at risk and the subsequent potential for long-term radiotherapy side-effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7931409
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The British Institute of Radiology.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79314092021-03-12 Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma Houlihan, Orla Anne Rangaswamy, Guhan Dunne, Mary Rohan, Christine O'Neill, Louise Chalke, Shelton Daly, Patricia Gillham, Charles McArdle, Orla BJR Open Original Research OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of lymphoma and many patients with lymphoma are cured with treatment. Risk of secondary malignancy and long-term cardiac and pulmonary toxicity from mediastinal radiotherapy exists. Delivery of radiotherapy using a deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique increases lung volume and has the potential to reduce dose to heart and lungs. We undertook a prospective study to assess the dosimetric differences in DIBH and free breathing (FB) plans in patients requiring mediastinal radiotherapy in clinical practice. METHODS: We performed both FB and DIBH planning scans on 35 consecutive patients with mediastinal lymphoma needing radiotherapy. Contours and plans were generated for both data sets and dosimetric data were compared. All patients were planned using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Data were compared for FB and DIBH plans with each patient acting as their own control using the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: DIBH significantly reduced lung doses (mean 10.6 vs 11.4Gy, p < 0.0005; V20 16.8 vs 18.3%, p = 0.001) and spinal cord maximum dose (20.6 vs 22.8Gy, p = 0.001). DIBH increased breast V4 (38.5% vs 31.8%, p = 0.006) and mean right breast dose (4.2 vs 3.6Gy, p = 0.010). There was no significant difference in heart doses when the entire study cohort was considered, however, mean heart dose tended to be lower with DIBH for upper mediastinal (UM) tumours (4.3 vs 4.9Gy, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study describes the potential benefit of DIBH in a population reflective of clinical practice. DIBH can decrease radiation dose to lungs, heart and spinal cord, however, may increase dose to breasts. DIBH is not always superior to FB, and the clinical significance of differences in dose to organs at risk in addition to the time required to treat patients with DIBH must be considered when deciding the most appropriate radiotherapy technique for each patient. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: To our knowledge, this is the largest study comparing DIBH and FB planning for patients with lymphoma receiving mediastinal radiotherapy in clinical practice. It demonstrates the impact of an increasingly common radiotherapy technique on dose to organs at risk and the subsequent potential for long-term radiotherapy side-effects. The British Institute of Radiology. 2021-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7931409/ /pubmed/33718767 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20200067 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Houlihan, Orla Anne
Rangaswamy, Guhan
Dunne, Mary
Rohan, Christine
O'Neill, Louise
Chalke, Shelton
Daly, Patricia
Gillham, Charles
McArdle, Orla
Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
title Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
title_full Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
title_fullStr Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
title_full_unstemmed Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
title_short Deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
title_sort deep inspiration breath hold versus free breathing technique in mediastinal radiotherapy for lymphoma
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7931409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33718767
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20200067
work_keys_str_mv AT houlihanorlaanne deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT rangaswamyguhan deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT dunnemary deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT rohanchristine deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT oneilllouise deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT chalkeshelton deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT dalypatricia deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT gillhamcharles deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma
AT mcardleorla deepinspirationbreathholdversusfreebreathingtechniqueinmediastinalradiotherapyforlymphoma