nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2015 | Research

Comparative dosimetric findings using accelerated partial breast irradiation across five catheter subtypes

verfasst von: Zaker Rana, Nadim M. Nasr, Huaying Ji, Virginia Lorio, Stephanie Akbari, Molly Sebastian, Mami Martin, Robert L. Hong

Erschienen in: Radiation Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2015

Abstract

Purpose

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with balloon and strut adjusted volume implants (SAVI) show promising results with excellent tumor control and minimal toxicity. Knowing the factors that contribute to a high skin dose, rib dose, and D₉₅ coverage may reduce toxicity, improve tumor control, and help properly predict patient outcomes following APBI.

Methods and materials

A retrospective analysis of 594 patients treated with brachytherapy based APBI at a single institution from May 2008 to September 2014 was grouped by applicator subtype. Patients were treated to a total of 34 Gy (3.4 Gy x 10 fractions over 5 days delivered BID) targeting a planning target volume (PTV) 1.0 cm beyond the lumpectomy cavity using a high dose rate source.

Results

SAVI devices had the lowest statistically significant values of D_maxSkin (81.00 ± 29.83), highest values of D₉₀ (101.50 ± 3.66), and D₉₅ (96.09 ± 4.55). SAVI-mini devices had the lowest statistically significant values of D_maxRib (77.66 ± 32.92) and smallest V₁₅₀ (18.01 ± 3.39). Multi-lumen balloons were able to obtain the smallest V₂₀₀ (5.89 ± 2.21). Strut-based applicators were more likely to achieve a D_maxSkin and a D_maxRib less than or equal to 100 %. The effect of PTV on V₁₅₀ showed a strong positive relationship (p < .001). PTV and D_maxSkin showed a weak negative relationship in multi-lumen applicators (p = .016) and SAVI-mini devices (p < .001). PTV and D_maxRib showed a weak negative relationship in multi-lumen applicators (p = .009), SAVI devices (p < .001), and SAVI-mini devices (p < .001).

Conclusion

PTV volume is strongly correlated with V₁₅₀ in all devices and V₂₀₀ in strut based devices. Larger PTV volumes result in greater V₁₅₀ and V₂₀₀, which could help predict potential risks for hotspots and resulting toxicities in these devices. PTV volume is also weakly negatively correlated with max skin dose and max rib dose, meaning that as the PTV volumes increase one can expect slightly smaller max skin and rib doses. Strut based applicators are significantly more effective in keeping skin and rib dose constraints under 125 and 100 % when compared to any balloon based applicator.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

ZR carried out the data analysis and drafted the manuscript. NN helped compile the data, was heavily involved in radiation treatment, and drafted the manuscript. HJ and VL compiled the data, put together the data in a spreadsheet, helped with data analysis, as well as editing the paper. SA, MS, and MM, contributed to surgery, placement of the devices, and editing the final manuscript. RH conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination, treated the patients, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Background

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) has gained popularity as an alternative option to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after lumpectomy in select patient populations with early stage breast cancer [1]. Several different forms of RT can be used to deliver APBI, including interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy, balloon catheter brachytherapy, intraoperative radiation therapy, and conformal external beam radiation therapy [2]. Initial data has been reported using interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy, a technique that uses image guidance for the insertion of multiple afterloading catheters around the lumpectomy cavity, resulting in excellent target coverage and conformality [3‐6]. Despite 10-year interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy results showing a local control rate ≥ 95 %, and excellent cosmetic outcomes in 90 % of patients, physician acceptance has been slow [7‐10, 6]. The slow acceptance is partly due to the high degree of technical skill required for a successful interstitial implant [3, 11].

The MammoSite Single-Lumen (MS-SL) applicator (Hologic Inc, Bedford, MA) was introduced to simplify application and make results reproducible. The MammoSite catheter is composed of a 15 cm double-lumen catheter, that is 6 mm in diameter, and connected to a silicone balloon. The balloon is inflated to a size that completely fills the lumpectomy cavity and the prescription radiation dose is inserted through the catheter into the balloon [2]. A minimum balloon-to-skin distance of 5 mm is required with a threshold of at least 7 mm strongly recommended, as longer skin distance is associated with improved cosmesis [12‐14]. MammoSite has been shown to be effective with low local recurrence rates and toxicity rates in both single institutional experiences and large multi-institutional experiences, like the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite registry trial [15, 16]. Patients with small breasts or upper-inner quadrant tumors are not eligible for MS-SL due to the balloon surface being too close to the skin. Furthermore, since the device contains a single central source channel, geometry is fixed and dose optimization is limited [17, 18].

In order to eliminate dosimetric limitations seen in single lumen devices, Hologic introduced a MammoSite Multi-lumen (MS-ML) device and the Contura Multi-Lumen Balloon (Bard Biopsy Systems, Tempe, AZ) was developed. The MS-ML device has fewer outer lumens (3 vs. 4) with a shorter offset (3 mm vs. 5 mm) from the central lumen when compared with the Contura device, but the two devices have been shown to produce a clinically comparable plan [19]. The outer lumens provide additional source positions and better dose flexibility when compared with a single-catheter approach. Multi-lumen catheters have also shown improvements in rib doses, skin doses, and PTV-EVAL coverage, when compared to single-lumen devices [20].

While multicatheter brachytherapy provides superior versatility and dosimetric conformity, they also require multiple skin incisions for placement. Hybrid brachytherapy devices were developed to provide dosimetric advantages while maintaining the simplicity and aesthetics of single-catheter breast brachytherapy devices [2]. The Strut Adjusted Volume Implant (SAVI) device (Cianna Medical, AlisoViejo, CA) is placed into a lumpectomy cavity through a single incision. The SAVI applicator itself has a central catheter as well as 6, 8, or 10 peripheral catheters that are expanded outwards to the periphery of the lumpectomy cavity after insertion [21]. The central and peripheral catheters contain a large number of potential dwell positions for the radiation source and are in direct contact with the lumpectomy cavity edge, providing flexibility in dose distribution [22].

APBI using balloon and strut-based applicators show promising results with excellent tumor control and minimal toxicity [23]. A higher dose to 95 % of the planning target volume (D95) is important in achieving tumor control [24]. Achieving better cosmetic outcomes and reducing toxicity requires reduction in normal tissue exposure. Telangiectasia development has been shown to be a function of skin dose. The Virginia Commonwealth University experience, Contura phase IV registry trial, and recommendations in the ongoing NSABP-B39 protocol proposed skin consraints of ≤120, ≤125, and ≤145 % [25, 3]. However, recently published data suggest that skin doses ≥ 100 % may represent a stronger predictor of late telangiectasia [23].

Knowing the factors that contribute to a high skin dose, rib dose, V150, V200, and D95 coverage may reduce toxicity, improve tumor control, and help properly predict patient outcomes following APBI. We present here our single-institution dosimetric performance with Mammosite, Contura, and SAVI APBI. We further characterize dosimetric correlates to reduce toxicity and maximize cosmetic preservation.

Methods and materials

A total of 594 patients, with localized breast cancer treated with brachytherapy based APBI at a single institution from May 2008 to September 2014, were retrospectively reviewed as part of a prospectively maintained institutional database. Due to the retrospective nature of this study, it was granted an exemption in writing by the Virginia Hospital Center IRB. Of the 594 patients, there were 496 strut based implants, including SAVI 6-1 mini, 6-1, 8-1, and 10-1 devices, but because of SAVI 6-1 mini’s unique size it was separated into its own group. Multi-catheter balloon implants consisted of 54 Contura devices and 10 MammoSite mulit-lumen devices. Because the two devices have been shown to produce similar plans, they were combined into one multi-lumen balloon subgroup. Categories used for statistical analysis included 243 SAVI devices, 253 SAVI 6-1 mini devices, 64 multi-lumen balloons, and 34 Mammosite single-lumen balloons.

Generally inclusion criteria for APBI were in accordance with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBS) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO): invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, tumor <3 cm, negative microscopic surgical margins, negative lymph nodes, and age 45 or older.

Patients were treated to a total of 34 Gy (3.4 Gy x 10 fractions over 5 days delivered BID) targeting a PTV 1 cm beyond the lumpectomy cavity using a high dose rate source. Minimum treatment planning goals for the planning target volume were initially D90 > 90 %; in October 2011, PTV coverage goals were adjusted to D₉₅ > 95 %. Size of the planning target volume, absolute volume of the tissue receiving 150 % of the prescription dose (V₁₅₀), and volume of tissue receiving 200 % (V200), were evaluated. 3D treatment planning system was used to obtain the maximal point doses delivered to the skin and chest wall.

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS v22.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05. Multiple analysis-of-variance (MANOVA) was performed to search for possible differences between catheter subtypes. Dosimetric parameters were then compared across catheter subtype using Student’s t-test (α < 0.05). Multiple logistic regression with backward elimination was used in the multivariate analysis to search for possible predicting factors for maximum skin dose, maximum rib dose, and D95. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to see PTV’s effect on D₉₀, D₉₅, V₁₅₀, V₂₀₀, D_maxSkin, and D_maxRib. Specifically, the basis of this analysis was to determine if larger PTV volumes would cause an increase in maximum doses and potential toxicities. A strong relationship was defined as an r-value greater than 0.5 or less than−0.5 with p < .05. A weak relationship was defined as an r-value between 0.25 and 0.5 or−0.25 and−0.5 with p < .05.

Results

The baseline characteristics for included patients (n = 594) are shown in Table 1. The mean values with the standard deviations of achieved dosimetric characteristics are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1. Student’s t-test was used to compare the dosimetric characteristics across each type of APBI device (Tables 3, 4 and 5).

Table 1

Baseline patient treatment characteristics

		Patients (N = 594)
Age (y/o)	Median 63 (37–92)
	>60, n (%)	342 (57.6 %)
	50–60, n (%)	173 (29.1 %)
	>40–50, n (%)	78 (13.1 %)
	<40, n (%)	1 (0.2 %)
Tumor location, n (%)	Left breast	297 (50.0 %)
	Right breast	297 (50.0 %)
Tumor Size (mm)	Median	13
	Range	2–25
Grade	Median	2
	Range	1–3

Table 2

Dose distribution parameters (mean values and standard deviation) across catheter subtype

	Single-lumen (n = 34)	Multi-lumen (n = 64)	SAVI (n = 243)	SAVI-mini (n = 253)	All Devices (n = 594)
D₉₀ (%)	97.33 ± 4.75	94.16 ± 6.54	101.50 ± 3.66	100.45 ± 5.48	100.02 ± 5.40
D₉₅ (%)	95.74 ± 7.47	90.06 ± 7.90	96.09 ± 4.55	94.12 ± 6.61	94.58 ± 6.33
D_maxSkin	108.56 ± 30.44	114.09 ± 34.10	81.00 ± 29.83	96.20 ± 27.17	92.62 ± 31.26
D_maxRib	114 ± 43.82	105.03 ± 47.80	78.06 ± 32.87	77.66 ± 32.92	82.85 ± 37.16
V₁₅₀ (cm³)	29.86 ± 5.44	23.44 ± 5.98	24.32 ± 4.69	18.01 ± 3.39	21.85 ± 5.66
V₂₀₀ (cm³)	6.34 ± 2.17	5.89 ± 2.21	10.74 ± 2.88	9.28 ± 1.87	9.34 ± 2.87
PTV (cm³)	94.62 ± 14.72	80.88 ± 19.55	60.15 ± 12.89	40.36 ± 7.13	55.93 ± 20.14

Table 3

Comparison of skin and rib doses between APBI devices

Dependent Variable	(I) Applicator	(J) Applicator	Mean Difference (I–J)	Std. Error	p
D_maxSkin	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	−5.5242	6.20960	.374
		Savi	27.5618	5.35769	< .001
		Savi-mini	12.3611	5.34468	.021
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	5.5242	6.20960	.374
		Savi	33.0860	4.11108	< .001
		Savi-mini	17.8853	4.09411	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	−27.5618	5.35769	< .001
		Multi-lumen	−33.0860	4.11108	< .001
		Savi-mini	−15.2007	2.62820	< .001
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	−12.3611	5.34468	.021
		Multi-lumen	−17.8853	4.09411	< .001
		Savi	15.2007	2.62820	< .001
D_maxRib	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	8.9750	7.52486	.233
		Savi	35.9376	6.49250	< .001
		Savi-mini	36.3416	6.47673	< .001
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	−8.9750	7.52486	.233
		Savi	26.9626	4.98185	< .001
		Savi-mini	27.3666	4.96129	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	−35.9376	6.49250	< .001
		Multi-lumen	−26.9626	4.98185	< .001
		Savi-mini	.4040	3.18487	.899
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	−36.3416	6.47673	< .001
		Multi-lumen	−27.3666	4.96129	< .001
		Savi	−.4040	3.18487	.899

Table 4

Comparison of D₉₀ and D₉₅ between APBI devices

	(I) Applicator	(J) Applicator	Mean Difference (I–J)	Std. Error	p
D₉₀	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	3.1699	1.04264	.002
		Savi	−4.1677	.89960	< .001
		Savi-mini	−3.1167	.89741	.001
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	−3.1699	1.04264	.002
		Savi	−7.3376	.69028	< .001
		Savi-mini	−6.2866	.68743	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	4.1677	.89960	< .001
		Multi-lumen	7.3376	.69028	< .001
		Savi-mini	1.0510	.44129	.018
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	3.1167	.89741	.001
		Multi-lumen	6.2866	.68743	< .001
		Savi	−1.0510	.44129	.018
D₉₅	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	5.6730	1.29051	< .001
		Savi	−.3506	1.11346	.753
		Savi-mini	1.6171	1.11076	.146
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	−5.6730	1.29051	< .001
		Savi	−6.0236	.85439	< .001
		Savi-mini	−4.0559	.85086	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	.3506	1.11346	.753
		Multi-lumen	6.0236	.85439	< .001
		Savi-mini	1.9677	.54620	< .001
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	−1.6171	1.11076	.146
		Multi-lumen	4.0559	.85086	< .001
		Savi	−1.9677	.54620	< .001

Table 5

Comparison of PTV, V150, and V200 between APBI devices

	(I) Applicator	(J) Applicator	Mean Difference (I–J)	Std. Error	p
PTV	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	13.7353	2.53559	< .001
		Savi	34.4664	2.18772	< .001
		Savi-mini	54.2576	2.18241	< .001
		Multi-lumen	13.7353	2.53559	< .001
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	−13.7353	2.53559	< .001
		Savi	20.7310	1.67869	< .001
		Savi-mini	40.5222	1.67176	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	−34.4664	2.18772	< .001
		Multi-lumen	−20.7310	1.67869	< .001
		Savi-mini	19.7912	1.07318	< .001
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	−54.2576	2.18241	< .001
		Multi-lumen	−40.5222	1.67176	< .001
		Savi	−19.7912	1.07318	< .001
V₁₅₀	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	6.4121	.93452	< .001
		Savi	5.5340	.80631	< .001
		Savi-mini	11.8479	.80435	< .001
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	−6.4121	.93452	< .001
		Savi	−.8782	.61870	.156
		Savi-mini	5.4357	.61615	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	−5.5340	.80631	< .001
		Multi-lumen	.8782	.61870	.156
		Savi-mini	6.3139	.39553	< .001
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	−11.8479	.80435	< .001
		Multi-lumen	−5.4357	.61615	< .001
		Savi	−6.3139	.39553	< .001
V₂₀₀	Single-lumen	Multi-lumen	.4523	.50586	.372
		Savi	−4.4003	.43646	< .001
		Savi-mini	−2.9443	.43540	< .001
	Multi-lumen	Single-lumen	−.4523	.50586	.372
		Savi	−4.8526	.33490	< .001
		Savi-mini	−3.3966	.33352	< .001
	Savi	Single-lumen	4.4003	.43646	< .001
		Multi-lumen	4.8526	.33490	< .001
		Savi-mini	1.4560	.21410	< .001
	Savi-mini	Single-lumen	2.9443	.43540	< .001
		Multi-lumen	3.3966	.33352	< .001
		Savi	−1.4560	.21410	< .001

D_maxSkin

The lowest values of D_maxSkin were obtained in the SAVI devices (81.00 ± 29.83). This mean difference was significantly less than single-lumen balloon applicators (−27.56, p < .001), multi-lumen balloon applicators (−33.09, p < .001), and SAVI-mini devices (−15.20, p < .001) (Table 3). Strut-based applicators (SAVI: 0.8 %, SAVI-mini: 4.0 %) were much less likely to receive a D_maxSkin greater than or equal to 125 %, when compared to single-lumen (32.4 %) and multi-lumen balloon applicators (31.3 %) (Fig. 2). Strut-based applicators were also more likely to achieve a D_maxSkin less than or equal to 100 % with SAVI devices achieving this 65.8 % of the time.

D_max Rib

The lowest values of D_max Rib were seen in the SAVI-mini devices (77.66 ± 32.92). The mean difference in SAVI-mini devices was statistically significant when compared to single-lumen balloon applicators (−36.34, p < .001) and multi-lumen balloon applicators (−27.37, p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in D_maxRib when comparing SAVI-mini devices with SAVI devices. Strut-based devices were able to achieve a D_maxRib less than or equal to 100 % in 70 % of patients treated, which was more frequent than the single-lumen balloon applicators (35.3 %) and multi-lumen balloon applicators (43.8 %) (Fig. 3).

D₉₀ and D₉₅

SAVI devices had the highest values of D₉₀ (101.50 ± 3.66) and D₉₅ (96.09 ± 4.55). When compared to multi-lumen balloon applicators, strut-based devices had a statistically significant greater D₉₀ mean difference (7.34, p < .001) and D₉₅ mean difference (6.02, p < .001) (Table 4). However, the difference was not statistically significant different when compared to single-lumen devices.

V₁₅₀ and V₂₀₀

SAVI-mini devices obtained the smallest V₁₅₀ (18.01 ± 3.39) and this mean difference was significantly smaller than single-lumen (−11.85, p < .001), multi-lumen (−5.44, p < .001), and SAVI devices (−6.31, p < .001) (Table 5). When looking at V₂₀₀, multi-lumen balloons were able to obtain the smallest volume (5.89 ± 2.21). This volume was significantly smaller than SAVI (−4.85, p < .001) and SAVI-mini devices (−3.40, p < .001), but when comparing V₂₀₀ obtained in multi-lumen and single-lumen applicators there was no significant difference.

PTV

PTV was statistically significantly smaller when SAVI and SAVI-mini devices were used as opposed to single-lumen and multi-lumen balloon applicators (Tables 2 and 5). The effect of PTV on dosimetric characteristics was observed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient in order to determine if larger PTV volumes resulted in greater maximum doses. When looking at all the devices together (n = 594), V₁₅₀ was the only dosimetric constraint to show a strong positive relationship with PTV (r = .783, p < .001) (Table 6). This strong positive relationship between PTV and V₁₅₀ was also observed when devices were stratified between SAVI (r = .808, p < .001), SAVI-mini devices (r = .826, p < .001), multi-lumen applicators (r = .547, p < .001), and single-lumen applicators (r = .513, p < .001). PTV and V₂₀₀ showed a strong positive relationship in SAVI-mini devices (r = .586, p < .001) and a weak positive relationship in SAVI devices (r = .266, p < .001). PTV and D_maxSkin showed a weak negative relationship in multi-lumen applicators (r = -.301, p = .016) and SAVI-mini devices (r =−.350, p < .001). PTV and D_maxRib showed a weak negative relationship in multi-lumen applicators (r =−.325, p = .009), SAVI devices (r = .407, p < .001), and SAVI-mini devices (r =−.297, p < .001). PTV had a weak positive relationship with D₉₀ in multi-lumen balloon applicators (r = .388, p = .002) and SAVI-mini devices (r = .335, p < .001). PTV also had a weak positive relationship with D₉₅ in multi-lumen balloon applicators (r = .382, p = .002) and SAVI-mini devices (r = .405, p < .001).

Table 6

The Effect of PTV on D₉₀, D₉₅, D_maxSkin, D_maxRib, V₁₅₀, and V₂₀₀

	Single-lumen		Multi-lumen		SAVI		SAVI 6-1 mini		Total
	(n = 34)		(n = 64)		(n = 243)		(n = 253)		(n = 594)
	r	p	r	p	r	p	r	p	r	p
PTV (cc) vs. D₉₀	.236	.180	.388*	.002	.072	.263	.335*	< .001	−.082*	.046
PTV (cc) vs D₉₅	.102	.565	.382*	.002	.129*	.044	.405*	< .001	.111*	.007
PTV (cc) vs D_maxSkin	−.153	.388	−.301*	.016	−.056	.384	−.350*	< .001	−.021	.603
PTV (cc) vs D_maxRib	−.217	.217	−.325*	.009	−.407*	< .001	−.297*	< .001	.020	.626
PTV (cc) vs V₁₅₀	.513*	.002	.547*	< .001	.808*	< .001	.826*	< .001	.783*	< .001
PTV (cc) vs V₂₀₀	−.332	.055	−.176	.163	.266*	< .001	.586*	< .001	−.125*	.002

Any relationship is demarcated with *. A strong relationship was defined as an r-value greater than 0.5 or less than −0.5 with p < .05. A weak relationship was defined as an r-value between 0.25 and 0.5 or −0.25 and −0.5 with p < .05

Of the 594 patients treated, 139 of the patients were followed for three years after treatment. There were 3 local failures (2.2 %) after three years resulting in a local control rate of 97.8 %. There were a total of 2 contralateral failures (1.4 %). Two and three year disease free survival rate were 98.8 and 96.3 % respectively.

Discussion

Our current report documents the ability to achieve dosimetric prescription goals across various applicators in patients treated with APBI. Low maximum skin dose and the small high-dose volumes are crucial in maintaining good cosmetic outcomes [2, 26‐30]. In HDR interstitial brachytherapy volumes receiving 150 and 200 % of prescription dose have been shown to correlate with toxicity [31]. Because of the link between toxicity and dosimetric parameters, the NSABP B39/RTOG 04-13 requires V₁₅₀ to be ≤ 70 cm³ and V₂₀₀ to be less than 20 cm³ in multi-catheter treatment and V₁₅₀ to be ≤ 50 cm³ and V₂₀₀ to be less than 10 cm³ in MammoSite balloon treatment.

It has been established that multi-lumen applicators allow for better optimization of dose distribution in the treatment area, minimizing the risk to nontarget areas [32, 31, 33]. However, this was not always the case in our data set as multi-lumen balloon applicators showed no statistically significant advantage to single-lumen balloon applicators when comparing D_maxSkin or D_maxRib. However, multi-lumen balloon applicators were able to achieve smaller high-dose volumes when compared to single-lumen balloon applicators.

Strut-based intracavitary devices showed a clear advantage in D₉₀, D_maxSkin, and D_maxRib, when compared to balloon-based applicators. Higher maximum doses in balloon applicators could be from confluent "hot spots" seen at the balloon surface [3]. Instead of a balloon, SAVI devices have a central catheter that is surrounded by multiple struts containing multiple dwell positions for the radioactive source. This design allows preferential treatment to the side of the cavity closest to the surgical margin and eliminates balloon surface "hot spots" [22]. The unique and flexible design could also account for the better D₉₀ and D₉₅. Additionally, in balloon-based applicators, seroma formation has been shown to be a function of radiation hot spots [34, 23].

Strut-based devices were significantly better at keeping the D_maxSkin and D_maxRib, under the 125 and 100 % thresholds. This may result in less skin and rib toxicity. Higher doses to the ribs are associated with fractures and limiting this value can decrease its incidence [14]. Vargo et. al recently showed telangiectasia development to be a function of skin dose, where a skin dose >100 % was the strongest predictor for telangiectasia development [23]. Cuttino et al. also showed that the maximal dose delivered to the skin was significantly associated with the incidence of telangiectasia and moderate to severe fibrosis, especially when doses were >120 % of the prescription dose [3]. The higher D_maxSkin in single-lumen devices was expected as dose constraints are sometimes not feasible as single-channel balloon catheters may thin out the anterior tissue plane [35].

Our data was similar to Patel et. al, who showed strut-based intracavitary implants are associated with a significantly greater V₂₀₀ and smaller V₁₅₀ when compared to balloon implants [36]. A suboptimal cosmetic outcome and skin toxicity has been shown to be significantly associated with V₁₅₀ and V₂₀₀, and inversely related to the dose homogeneity index which is defined as (1 – V₁₅₀/V₁₀₀). The development of fat necrosis has also been shown to be associated with V₁₅₀ and V₂₀₀, while late subcutaneous toxicity has only shown associations with dose homogeneity index [31]. Even though clinical significance has not yet been established, the dose homogeneity index with SAVI is typically lower than those seen in interstitial or balloon brachytherapy [22]. V₁₅₀ and V₂₀₀ could also have to reach a specific threshold to result in toxicity. Cuttino et. al saw no association between outcomes and V₁₅₀ or V₂₀₀, but accounted for this because only 4 % of their patient population exceeded a V₂₀₀ of 20 cm³ [3]. Our results were similar, as only one patient (0.1 %) exceeded a V₂₀₀ of 20 cm³.

Because strut-based devices were used on smaller PTVs we wanted to see how the PTV affected dosimetric parameters. The only strong correlation in all devices was seen between PTV and V₁₅₀ showing that with greater treatment volumes higher dose volumes should be expected. PTV and V200 also showed a strong correlation in SAVI-mini devices. PTV was weakly negatively correlated with max skin dose and max rib dose and weakly positively correlated with D₉₅ across the strut based and multi-channel balloon applicators. Because of this weak correlation it is hard to anticipate maximum doses to the skin and ribs by PTV alone. While our study had a minimum skin bridge of 5 mm for all patients, based on the correlation between smaller PTV and maximum skin dose the SAVI-mini may prove to be appropriate for those with less than 5 mm of skin distance. The variable of skin bridge was eliminated because we had a cutoff of 5 mm. No patients experienced a fracture within the follow-up period within the contoured rib structures.

This study has several limitations. Because this study was a retrospective analysis there was a lack of standardization among patients. The group of patients receiving strut-based devices was also much larger than the patients receiving single-lumen or multi-lumen balloon applicators.

Conclusion

The data from this study shows PTV volume is strongly correlated with V₁₅₀ in all devices and V₂₀₀ in strut based devices. Larger PTV volumes result in greater V₁₅₀ and V₂₀₀, which could help predict potential risks for hotspots and resulting toxicities in these devices. PTV volume is also weakly negatively correlated with max skin dose and max rib dose, meaning that as the PTV volumes increase one can expect slightly smaller max skin and rib doses. Strut based applicators are significantly more effective in keeping skin and rib dose constraints under 125 and 100 % when compared to any balloon based applicator and also achieve a significantly better D₉₀.

Acknowledgements

There are no further acknowledgements and no additional source of funding.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

Sarin R. Partial-breast treatment for early breast cancer: emergence of a new paradigm. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005;2(1):40–7. doi:10.1038/ncponc0071.PubMedCrossRef

Njeh CF, Saunders MW, Langton CM. Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI): a review of available techniques. Radiat Oncol. 2010;5:90. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-5-90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Cuttino LW, Heffernan J, Vera R, Rosu M, Ramakrishnan VR, Arthur DW. Association between maximal skin dose and breast brachytherapy outcome: a proposal for more rigorous dosimetric constraints. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):e173–7. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.12.023.PubMedCrossRef

King TA, Bolton JS, Kuske RR, Fuhrman GM, Scroggins TG, Jiang XZ. Long-term results of wide-field brachytherapy as the sole method of radiation therapy after segmental mastectomy for T(is,1,2) breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;180(4):299–304.PubMedCrossRef

Vicini FA, Baglan KL, Kestin LL, Mitchell C, Chen PY, Frazier RC, et al. Accelerated treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(7):1993–2001.PubMed

Polgar C, Fodor J, Major T, Nemeth G, Lovey K, Orosz Z, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with partial or whole breast irradiation for low-risk invasive breast carcinoma--5-year results of a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(3):694–702. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.022.PubMedCrossRef

Antonucci JV, Wallace M, Goldstein NS, Kestin L, Chen P, Benitez P, et al. Differences in patterns of failure in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation: a matched-pair analysis with 10-year follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(2):447–52. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.025.PubMedCrossRef

Arthur DW, Winter K, Kuske RR, Bolton J, Rabinovitch R, White J, et al. A Phase II trial of brachytherapy alone after lumpectomy for select breast cancer: tumor control and survival outcomes of RTOG 95-17. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(2):467–73. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.056.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Kaufman SA, DiPetrillo TA, Price LL, Midle JB, Wazer DE. Long-term outcome and toxicity in a Phase I/II trial using high-dose-rate multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy for T1/T2 breast cancer. Brachytherapy. 2007;6(4):286–92. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2007.09.001.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ott OJ, Hildebrandt G, Potter R, Hammer J, Lotter M, Resch A, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation with multi-catheter brachytherapy: Local control, side effects and cosmetic outcome for 274 patients. Results of the German-Austrian multi-centre trial. Radiother Oncol. 2007;82(3):281–6. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2006.08.028.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Benitez PR, Keisch ME, Vicini F, Stolier A, Scroggins T, Walker A, et al. Five-year results: the initial clinical trial of MammoSite balloon brachytherapy for partial breast irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2007;194(4):456–62. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.010.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Dragun AE, Harper JL, Jenrette JM, Sinha D, Cole DJ. Predictors of cosmetic outcome following MammoSite breast brachytherapy: a single-institution experience of 100 patients with two years of follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(2):354–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.014.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Niehoff P, Polgar C, Ostertag H, Major T, Sulyok Z, Kimmig B, et al. Clinical experience with the MammoSite radiation therapy system for brachytherapy of breast cancer: results from an international phase II trial. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79(3):316–20. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2006.05.010.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Vicini F, Beitsch PD, Quiet CA, Keleher AJ, Garcia D, Snider Jr HC, et al. Three-year analysis of treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity by the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy Registry Trial in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Cancer. 2008;112(4):758–66. doi:10.1002/cncr.23227.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Khan AJ, Arthur D, Vicini F, Beitsch P, Kuerer H, Goyal S, et al. Six-year analysis of treatment-related toxicities in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation on the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy registry trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(5):1477–83. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-2133-1.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Vicini F, Beitsch P, Quiet C, Gittleman M, Zannis V, Fine R, et al. Five-year analysis of treatment efficacy and cosmesis by the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy Registry Trial in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(3):808–17. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.043.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Dickler A, Patel RR, Wazer D. Breast brachytherapy devices. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2009;6(3):325–33. doi:10.1586/erd.09.6.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Brashears JH, Dragun AE, Jenrette JM. Late chest wall toxicity after MammoSite breast brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2009;8(1):19–25. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2008.07.007.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kim Y, Trombetta M. Dosimetric evaluation of MammoSite® multi-lumen balloon applicator compared with contura® applicator for high dose rate (HDR) breast brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(2):902–3.CrossRef

20.

Brown S, McLaughlin M, Pope K, Haile K, Hughes L, Israel PZ. Initial radiation experience evaluating early tolerance and toxicities in patients undergoing accelerated partial breast irradiation using the Contura Multi-Lumen Balloon breast brachytherapy catheter. Brachytherapy. 2009;8(2):227–33. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2008.11.013.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Scanderbeg DJ, Yashar C, Rice R, Pawlicki T. Clinical implementation of a new HDR brachytherapy device for partial breast irradiation. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(1):36–42. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.09.024.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Gurdalli S, Kuske RR, Quiet CA, Ozer M. Dosimetric performance of strut-adjusted volume implant: a new single-entry multicatheter breast brachytherapy applicator. Brachytherapy. 2011;10(2):128–35. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2010.03.002.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Vargo JA, Verma V, Kim H, Kalash R, Heron DE, Johnson R, et al. Extended (5-year) outcomes of accelerated partial breast irradiation using MammoSite balloon brachytherapy: patterns of failure, patient selection, and dosimetric correlates for late toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(2):285–91. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.039.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Bratengeier K, Oechsner M, Gainey M, Flentje M. Remarks on reporting and recording consistent with the ICRU reference dose. Radiat Oncol. 2009;4:44. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-4-44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Arthur DW, Vicini FA, Todor DA, Julian TB, Cuttino LW, Mukhopadhyay ND. Contura Multi-Lumen Balloon breast brachytherapy catheter: comparative dosimetric findings of a phase 4 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(2):264–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.01.005.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Offersen BV, Overgaard M, Kroman N, Overgaard J. Accelerated partial breast irradiation as part of breast conserving therapy of early breast carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(1):1–13. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.08.005.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Polgar C, Van Limbergen E, Potter R, Kovacs G, Polo A, Lyczek J, et al. Patient selection for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) after breast-conserving surgery: recommendations of the Groupe Europeen de Curietherapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) breast cancer working group based on clinical evidence (2009). Radiother Oncol. 2010;94(3):264–73. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2010.01.014.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Sauer G, Strnad V, Kurzeder C, Kreienberg R, Sauer R. Partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery. Strahlenther Onkol. 2005;181(1):1–8. doi:10.1007/s00066-005-1394-7.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Strauss JB, Dickler A. Accelerated partial breast irradiation utilizing balloon brachytherapy techniques. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91(2):157–65. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.014.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Weed DW, Edmundson GK, Vicini FA, Chen PY, Martinez AA. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: a dosimetric comparison of three different techniques. Brachytherapy. 2005;4(2):121–9. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2004.12.005.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Wazer DE, Kaufman S, Cuttino L, DiPetrillo T, Arthur DW. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: an analysis of variables associated with late toxicity and long-term cosmetic outcome after high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(2):489–95. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.028.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Kini V. Balloon breast brachytherapy—review of current data. Brachytherapy. 2005;4(3):181–2. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2005.07.003.PubMedCrossRef

33.

White J. MammoSite and accelerated partial breast irradiation: rethinking one-size-fits-all breast irradiation after lumpectomy. Brachytherapy. 2005;4(3):183–5. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2005.07.001.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Chao KK, Vicini FA, Wallace M, Mitchell C, Chen P, Ghilezan M, et al. Analysis of treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity using the MammoSite breast brachytherapy catheter to deliver accelerated partial-breast irradiation: the William Beaumont Hospital experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(1):32–40. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.026.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Brown S, McLaughlin M, Pope DK, Haile K, Hughes L, Israel PZ, et al. A dosimetric comparison of the Contura multilumen balloon breast brachytherapy catheter vs. the single-lumen MammoSite balloon device in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation at a single institution. Brachytherapy. 2011;10(1):68–73. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2010.01.001.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Patel R, Wong G, Tran L, et al. Multi-lumen hybrid breast brachytherapy: Strut versus balloon—Dosimetric results in first 100 patients. Brachytherapy. 2010;9:S32–S3.CrossRef

Titel: Comparative dosimetric findings using accelerated partial breast irradiation across five catheter subtypes
verfasst von: Zaker Rana
Nadim M. Nasr
Huaying Ji
Virginia Lorio
Stephanie Akbari
Molly Sebastian
Mami Martin
Robert L. Hong
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2015
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: Radiation Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2015
Elektronische ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0468-7

Springer Medizin

Comparative dosimetric findings using accelerated partial breast irradiation across five catheter subtypes