Cargando…

Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience

PURPOSE: Proton therapy use for breast cancer has grown due to advantages in coverage and potentially reduced late toxicities compared with conventional radiation therapy. We aimed to provide recommendations for robustness criteria, daily imaging, and quality assurance computed tomography (QA CT) fr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ger, Rachel B., Sheikh, Khadija, Gogineni, Emile, Floreza, Bethlehem, Croog, Victoria, Li, Heng, Wright, Jean L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101069
_version_ 1784802737054023680
author Ger, Rachel B.
Sheikh, Khadija
Gogineni, Emile
Floreza, Bethlehem
Croog, Victoria
Li, Heng
Wright, Jean L.
author_facet Ger, Rachel B.
Sheikh, Khadija
Gogineni, Emile
Floreza, Bethlehem
Croog, Victoria
Li, Heng
Wright, Jean L.
author_sort Ger, Rachel B.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Proton therapy use for breast cancer has grown due to advantages in coverage and potentially reduced late toxicities compared with conventional radiation therapy. We aimed to provide recommendations for robustness criteria, daily imaging, and quality assurance computed tomography (QA CT) frequency for these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients treated for localized breast cancer at the Johns Hopkins Proton Center between November 2019 and February 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Daily shift information was extracted and examined through control charts. If an adaptive plan was used, the time to replan was recorded. Three and 5 mm setup uncertainty was used to calculate robustness. Robust evaluation of QA CTs was compared with initial robustness range for breast/chest wall and lymph node target coverage. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included: 19 with intact breast, 25 with non-reconstructed chest wall, and 22 with chest wall plus expanders or implants. Sixteen percent, 13%, and 41% of breast, chest wall, and expander/implant patients had a replan. Only patients with expanders or implants required 2 adaptive plans. Daily shift data showed large variation and did not correlate with plan adaptation. Patients without adaptive plans had QA CTs with dose-volume histogram metrics within robustness more frequently than those with adaptive plans. Using 3 mm robustness for patients who did not require an adaptive plan, 91% to 100% of patients had QA CTs within robustness, while 55% to 60% of patients with an adaptive plan had QA CTs within robustness for the axilla, internal mammary nodes, and supraclavicular nodes. Five millimeter setup uncertainty did not significantly improve this. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using daily cone beam CT because of the large variation in daily setup with 3 mm setup uncertainty in robustness analysis. If daily cone beam CT imaging is not available, then larger setup uncertainty should be used. Two QA CTs should be conducted during treatment if the patient has expanders or implants; otherwise, one QA CT is sufficient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9535282
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95352822022-10-07 Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience Ger, Rachel B. Sheikh, Khadija Gogineni, Emile Floreza, Bethlehem Croog, Victoria Li, Heng Wright, Jean L. Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article PURPOSE: Proton therapy use for breast cancer has grown due to advantages in coverage and potentially reduced late toxicities compared with conventional radiation therapy. We aimed to provide recommendations for robustness criteria, daily imaging, and quality assurance computed tomography (QA CT) frequency for these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients treated for localized breast cancer at the Johns Hopkins Proton Center between November 2019 and February 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Daily shift information was extracted and examined through control charts. If an adaptive plan was used, the time to replan was recorded. Three and 5 mm setup uncertainty was used to calculate robustness. Robust evaluation of QA CTs was compared with initial robustness range for breast/chest wall and lymph node target coverage. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included: 19 with intact breast, 25 with non-reconstructed chest wall, and 22 with chest wall plus expanders or implants. Sixteen percent, 13%, and 41% of breast, chest wall, and expander/implant patients had a replan. Only patients with expanders or implants required 2 adaptive plans. Daily shift data showed large variation and did not correlate with plan adaptation. Patients without adaptive plans had QA CTs with dose-volume histogram metrics within robustness more frequently than those with adaptive plans. Using 3 mm robustness for patients who did not require an adaptive plan, 91% to 100% of patients had QA CTs within robustness, while 55% to 60% of patients with an adaptive plan had QA CTs within robustness for the axilla, internal mammary nodes, and supraclavicular nodes. Five millimeter setup uncertainty did not significantly improve this. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using daily cone beam CT because of the large variation in daily setup with 3 mm setup uncertainty in robustness analysis. If daily cone beam CT imaging is not available, then larger setup uncertainty should be used. Two QA CTs should be conducted during treatment if the patient has expanders or implants; otherwise, one QA CT is sufficient. Elsevier 2022-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9535282/ /pubmed/36213549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101069 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Scientific Article
Ger, Rachel B.
Sheikh, Khadija
Gogineni, Emile
Floreza, Bethlehem
Croog, Victoria
Li, Heng
Wright, Jean L.
Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience
title Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience
title_full Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience
title_fullStr Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience
title_full_unstemmed Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience
title_short Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience
title_sort planning and treatment recommendations for breast proton therapy from a single center's experience
topic Scientific Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101069
work_keys_str_mv AT gerrachelb planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience
AT sheikhkhadija planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience
AT gogineniemile planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience
AT florezabethlehem planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience
AT croogvictoria planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience
AT liheng planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience
AT wrightjeanl planningandtreatmentrecommendationsforbreastprotontherapyfromasinglecentersexperience