Deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer

An analysis of predictors for organ-at-risk sparing

Steven Register, Cristiane Takita, Isildinha Reis, Wei Zhao, William Amestoy, Jean Wright

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

To identify anatomic and treatment characteristics that correlate with organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique to guide patient selection for this technique. Anatomic and treatment characteristics and radiation doses to OARs were compared between free-breathing and DIBH plans. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors independently predicting for cardiac sparing. We identified 64 patients: 44 with intact breast and 20 postmastectomy. For changes measured directly on treatment planning scans, DIBH plans decreased heart-chest wall length (6.5 vs 5.0cm, p <0.001), and increased lung volume (1074.4 vs 1881.3cm3, p <0.001), and for changes measured after fields are set, they decreased maximum heart depth (1.1 vs 0.3cm, p <0.001) and heart volume in field (HVIF) (9.1 vs 0.9cm3, p <0.001). DIBH reduced the mean heart dose (3.4 vs 1.8Gy, p <0.001) and lung V20 (19.6% vs 15.3%, p <0.001). Regression analysis found that only change in HVIF independently predicted for cardiac sparing. We identified patients in the bottom quartile of the dosimetric benefits seen with DIBH and categorized the cause of this "minimal benefit." Overall, 29% of patients satisfied these criteria for minimal benefit with DIBH and the most common cause was favorable baseline anatomy. Only the reduction in HVIF predicted for reductions in mean heart dose; no specific anatomic surrogate for the dosimetric benefits of DIBH technique could be identified. Most patients have significant dosimetric benefit with DIBH, and this technique should be planned and evaluated for all patients receiving left-sided breast/chest wall radiation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)89-95
Number of pages7
JournalMedical Dosimetry
Volume40
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015

Fingerprint

Organs at Risk
Cardiac Volume
Thoracic Wall
Breast
Regression Analysis
Radiation
Lung
Patient Selection
Linear Models
Anatomy
Respiration
Therapeutics
Unilateral Breast Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Cardiac sparing
  • Deep inspiration breath-hold

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer : An analysis of predictors for organ-at-risk sparing. / Register, Steven; Takita, Cristiane; Reis, Isildinha; Zhao, Wei; Amestoy, William; Wright, Jean.

In: Medical Dosimetry, Vol. 40, No. 1, 01.02.2015, p. 89-95.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Register, Steven ; Takita, Cristiane ; Reis, Isildinha ; Zhao, Wei ; Amestoy, William ; Wright, Jean. / Deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer : An analysis of predictors for organ-at-risk sparing. In: Medical Dosimetry. 2015 ; Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 89-95.
@article{3263dc95ab5747efb772d86eeb4db220,
title = "Deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer: An analysis of predictors for organ-at-risk sparing",
abstract = "To identify anatomic and treatment characteristics that correlate with organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique to guide patient selection for this technique. Anatomic and treatment characteristics and radiation doses to OARs were compared between free-breathing and DIBH plans. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors independently predicting for cardiac sparing. We identified 64 patients: 44 with intact breast and 20 postmastectomy. For changes measured directly on treatment planning scans, DIBH plans decreased heart-chest wall length (6.5 vs 5.0cm, p <0.001), and increased lung volume (1074.4 vs 1881.3cm3, p <0.001), and for changes measured after fields are set, they decreased maximum heart depth (1.1 vs 0.3cm, p <0.001) and heart volume in field (HVIF) (9.1 vs 0.9cm3, p <0.001). DIBH reduced the mean heart dose (3.4 vs 1.8Gy, p <0.001) and lung V20 (19.6{\%} vs 15.3{\%}, p <0.001). Regression analysis found that only change in HVIF independently predicted for cardiac sparing. We identified patients in the bottom quartile of the dosimetric benefits seen with DIBH and categorized the cause of this {"}minimal benefit.{"} Overall, 29{\%} of patients satisfied these criteria for minimal benefit with DIBH and the most common cause was favorable baseline anatomy. Only the reduction in HVIF predicted for reductions in mean heart dose; no specific anatomic surrogate for the dosimetric benefits of DIBH technique could be identified. Most patients have significant dosimetric benefit with DIBH, and this technique should be planned and evaluated for all patients receiving left-sided breast/chest wall radiation.",
keywords = "Breast cancer, Cardiac sparing, Deep inspiration breath-hold",
author = "Steven Register and Cristiane Takita and Isildinha Reis and Wei Zhao and William Amestoy and Jean Wright",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.meddos.2014.10.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "89--95",
journal = "Medical Dosimetry",
issn = "0958-3947",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left-sided breast cancer

T2 - An analysis of predictors for organ-at-risk sparing

AU - Register, Steven

AU - Takita, Cristiane

AU - Reis, Isildinha

AU - Zhao, Wei

AU - Amestoy, William

AU - Wright, Jean

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - To identify anatomic and treatment characteristics that correlate with organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique to guide patient selection for this technique. Anatomic and treatment characteristics and radiation doses to OARs were compared between free-breathing and DIBH plans. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors independently predicting for cardiac sparing. We identified 64 patients: 44 with intact breast and 20 postmastectomy. For changes measured directly on treatment planning scans, DIBH plans decreased heart-chest wall length (6.5 vs 5.0cm, p <0.001), and increased lung volume (1074.4 vs 1881.3cm3, p <0.001), and for changes measured after fields are set, they decreased maximum heart depth (1.1 vs 0.3cm, p <0.001) and heart volume in field (HVIF) (9.1 vs 0.9cm3, p <0.001). DIBH reduced the mean heart dose (3.4 vs 1.8Gy, p <0.001) and lung V20 (19.6% vs 15.3%, p <0.001). Regression analysis found that only change in HVIF independently predicted for cardiac sparing. We identified patients in the bottom quartile of the dosimetric benefits seen with DIBH and categorized the cause of this "minimal benefit." Overall, 29% of patients satisfied these criteria for minimal benefit with DIBH and the most common cause was favorable baseline anatomy. Only the reduction in HVIF predicted for reductions in mean heart dose; no specific anatomic surrogate for the dosimetric benefits of DIBH technique could be identified. Most patients have significant dosimetric benefit with DIBH, and this technique should be planned and evaluated for all patients receiving left-sided breast/chest wall radiation.

AB - To identify anatomic and treatment characteristics that correlate with organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique to guide patient selection for this technique. Anatomic and treatment characteristics and radiation doses to OARs were compared between free-breathing and DIBH plans. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors independently predicting for cardiac sparing. We identified 64 patients: 44 with intact breast and 20 postmastectomy. For changes measured directly on treatment planning scans, DIBH plans decreased heart-chest wall length (6.5 vs 5.0cm, p <0.001), and increased lung volume (1074.4 vs 1881.3cm3, p <0.001), and for changes measured after fields are set, they decreased maximum heart depth (1.1 vs 0.3cm, p <0.001) and heart volume in field (HVIF) (9.1 vs 0.9cm3, p <0.001). DIBH reduced the mean heart dose (3.4 vs 1.8Gy, p <0.001) and lung V20 (19.6% vs 15.3%, p <0.001). Regression analysis found that only change in HVIF independently predicted for cardiac sparing. We identified patients in the bottom quartile of the dosimetric benefits seen with DIBH and categorized the cause of this "minimal benefit." Overall, 29% of patients satisfied these criteria for minimal benefit with DIBH and the most common cause was favorable baseline anatomy. Only the reduction in HVIF predicted for reductions in mean heart dose; no specific anatomic surrogate for the dosimetric benefits of DIBH technique could be identified. Most patients have significant dosimetric benefit with DIBH, and this technique should be planned and evaluated for all patients receiving left-sided breast/chest wall radiation.

KW - Breast cancer

KW - Cardiac sparing

KW - Deep inspiration breath-hold

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923104065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923104065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.meddos.2014.10.005

DO - 10.1016/j.meddos.2014.10.005

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 89

EP - 95

JO - Medical Dosimetry

JF - Medical Dosimetry

SN - 0958-3947

IS - 1

ER -