Evaluation of a new predictor of heart and left anterior descending artery dose in patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy to the left breast.

BACKGROUND: Heart-sparing techniques are time and resource intensive, although not all patients require the use of these strategies. This study evaluates the performance of different distance metrics in predicting the need for breath-hold radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS: Fifty left-sided breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast from a single institution were retrospectively studied. The left breast and organs at risk were contoured in accordance to guidelines and a plan with tangents was obtained using the free-breathing CT in supine position. Heart (mean heart dose (MHD), heart V25 Gy) and left anterior descending artery dosimetry were computed and compared against distance metrics under investigation (Contact Heart, 4th Arch and 5th Arch). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to determine optimal cut-points for distance metrics for dosimetric end points. Receiver operating characteristic curves and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the association between distance metrics and dosimetric endpoints. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of dosimetric end points. RESULTS: The mean MHD and heart V25 Gy were 2.3 Gy and 10.4 cm3, respectively. With tangents, constraints for MHD (< 1.7 Gy and V25 Gy < 10 cm3) were unattainable in 80% and 46% of patients, respectively. Optimal RPA thresholds included: Contact Heart (73 mm), 4th Arch (7 mm) and 5th Arch (41 mm). Of these, the 4th Arch had the highest overall accuracy, sensitivity, concordance index and correlation coefficient. All metrics were statistically significant predictors for MHD ≥ 1.7 Gy based on univariable logistic regression. Fifth Arch did not reach significance for heart V25 Gy ≥ 10 cm3. Fourth Arch was the only predictor to remain statistically significant after multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a novel "4th Arch" metric as an accurate and practical tool to determine the need for breath-hold radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy with standard tangents. Further validation in an external cohort is necessary.

Delineation of the primary tumour Clinical Target Volumes (CTV-P) in laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: AIRO, CACA, DAHANCA, EORTC, GEORCC, GORTEC, HKNPCSG, HNCIG, IAG-KHT, LPRHHT, NCIC CTG, NCRI, NRG Oncology, PHNS, SBRT, SOMERA, SRO, SSHNO, TROG consensus guidelines.

PURPOSE: Few studies have reported large inter-observer variations in target volume selection and delineation in patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Consensus guidelines have been published for the neck nodes (see Grégoire et al., 2003, 2014), but such recommendations are lacking for primary tumour delineation. For the latter, two main schools of thoughts are prevailing, one based on geometric expansion of the Gross Tumour Volume (GTV) as promoted by DAHANCA, and the other one based on anatomical expansion of the GTV using compartmentalization of head and neck anatomy. METHOD: For each anatomic location within the larynx, hypopharynx, oropharynx and oral cavity, and for each T-stage, the DAHANCA proposal has been comprehensively reviewed and edited to include anatomic knowledge into the geometric Clinical Target Volume (CTV) delineation concept. A first proposal was put forward by the leading authors of this publication (VG and CG) and discussed with opinion leaders in head and neck radiation oncology from Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, North America and South America to reach a worldwide consensus. RESULTS: This consensus proposes two CTVs for the primary tumour, the so called CTV-P1 and CVT-P2, corresponding to a high and lower tumour burden, and which should be associated with a high and a lower dose prescription, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these guidelines in the daily practice of radiation oncology should contribute to reduce treatment variations from clinicians to clinicians, facilitate the conduct of multi-institutional clinical trials, and contribute to improved care of patients with head and neck carcinoma.