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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |