Efficacy and safety analysis of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy in postoperative breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: In this meta-analysis, we conducted a comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy in individuals who had undergone surgery for breast cancer. METHODS: This study involved a systematic and independent review of relevant research articles published in reputable databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Two investigators conducted the review, which included studies published up to January 3, 2023. The quality of the eligible studies was evaluated and data were extracted using Review Manager software 5.4 (RevMan 5.4) to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The analysis comprised 35 studies and encompassed a collective sample of 18,246 individuals diagnosed with breast cancer. We did not find a statistically significant disparity in efficacy between conventional fractionated (CF) radiotherapy and hypofractionated (HF) radiotherapy regarding local recurrence (LR; OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76-1.09, P = 0.30), disease-free survival (DFS; OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.01-1.42, P = 0.03), and overall survival (OS; OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.93-1.26, P = 0.28). Concerning safety, there was no significant difference between the HF and CF regimens in terms of breast pain, breast atrophy, lymphedema, pneumonia, pulmonary fibrosis, telangiectasia, and cardiotoxicity. However, the HF regimen resulted in lower skin toxicity (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.55, P < 0.01) and improved patient fatigue outcomes (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60 - 0.88, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no substantial difference in LR, DFS, OS, or many other side effects between the HF and CF regimens, the HF regimen reduces skin toxicity and relieves patient fatigue. If these two issues need to be addressed in clinical situations, the HF regimen may be a superior alternative to conventional radiotherapy in postoperative breast cancer patients.

Cardiorespiratory dose comparison among six radiotherapy regimens for patients with left-sided breast cancer.

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and drawbacks of various radiation protocols for the treatment of left-sided breast cancer. To address this issue, we conducted a Bayesian network analysis. First, we searched several electronic databases for eligible literature. Next, we pooled the data from twelve studies concerning three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), combined with either deep inspiratory breath-holding (DIBH) or free-breathing (FB) modalities. The integrated cardiac and pulmonary dosimetric indexes for all included treatments were compared using Bayesian networks. A direct meta-analysis indicated that for the two methods of 3D-CRT and IMRT, DIBH technology was more effective than FB in reducing the radiation dose to the heart and lungs. Additionally, according to the network results, DIBH was superior to FB in all six treatment options, regardless of whether the plan was 3D-CRT, IMRT, or VMAT. Besides, the combined data indicated that the FB-3D-CRT regimen had the weakest dosimetric advantage of all the treatments. Excluding FB-3D-CRT, each of the other five treatments had its own specific benefits. This is the first Bayesian study of several radiotherapy regimens for breast cancer patients on the left side, and the findings can be used to select appropriate radiotherapy programs for breast cancer patients.

A method for selecting reference beam model of VMAT plans with three 6MV beam-matched linear accelerators during radiation oncology.

Our objective was to provide a method for selecting reference beam model and evaluating the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans delivered on three Elekta beam-matched linacs during radiation oncology. Beam data was measured on three beam-matched linacs including Synergy1, Synergy2 and VersaHD. For eighteen lung and esophagus cases, fifty-four plans were generated using VMAT technique with three linac beam models respectively for point dose measurement and three-dimensional dose measurement. Each VMAT plan was executed sequentially on three linacs respectively. Measurement results were compared with treatment planning system (TPS) calculation results for all VMAT plans. Among three beam-matched linacs, discrepancy in beam output factor, percentage depth dose at 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm depth and MLC leaf offset are all within 1% except 20 × 20 cm2 and 30 × 30 cm2 field sizes, and discrepancy in beam profile is all within 2%. With comparison between measurement result and TPS calculation result, the absolute dose deviations are within the range of ± 3%, and the gamma passing rates are all over 95% for all VMAT plans, which are within the tolerance of clinical acceptability. Compared with all plans delivered on Synegy1 and VersaHD, the point dose discrepancy between measured results and TPS calculated results for plans delivered on Synergy2 is smallest, and the gamma passing rate between measured results and TPS calculated results for plans delivered on Synergy2 is highest. The beam-matched linacs demonstrate good agreement between measurement result and TPS calculation result for VMAT plans. The method can be used for selecting reference beam model for VMAT plans.

Comparison of Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Versus Free Breathing in Radiotherapy for Left Sided Breast Cancer.

Objectives: Modern breast cancer techniques, such as the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique has been applied for left-sided breast cancer. Whether the DIBH regimen is the optimal solution for left-sided breast cancer remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to elucidate the differences of DIBH and free-breathing (FB) for patients receiving radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer and provide a practical reference for clinical practice. Methods: Relevant research available on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science published before November 30, 2021 was independently and systematically examined by two investigators. Data were extracted from eligible studies for assessing their qualities and calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager software 5.4 (RevMan 5.4). Results: Forty-one studies with a total of 3599 left-sided breast cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with FB, DIBH reduced heart dose (D mean, D max, V30, V10, V5), left anterior descending branch (LAD) dose (D mean, D max), ipsilateral lung dose (D mean, V20, V10, V5), and heart volume significantly. Lung volume increased greatly, and a statistically significant difference. For contralateral breast mean dose, DIBH has no obvious advantage over FB. The funnel plot suggested this study has no significant publication bias. Conclusions: Although DIBH has no obvious advantage over FB in contralateral breast mean dose, it can significantly reduce heart dose, LAD dose, ipsilateral lung dose, and heart volume. Conversely, it can remarkably increase the ipsilateral lung volume. This study suggests that soon DIBH could be more widely utilized in clinical practice because of its excellent dosimetric performance.

Comparison of therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF)-based induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In recent years, docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF)-based induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been commonly applied for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). However, whether TPF+CCRT regimen is the best choice for LA-NPC remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to elucidate and compare the efficacy and toxicity of TPF+CCRT versus CCRT alone for LA-NPC. METHODS: Two investigators independently and systematically searched relevant studies available on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science published before January 7, 2021. Data were extracted from eligible studies for assessing their qualities, and calculating pooled hazard ratios (HR), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager software 5.3 (RevMan 5.3). RESULTS: Five studies involving 759 LA-NPC patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. Compared to CCRT alone, TPF-based IC plus CCRT significantly improved overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35-0.81, P = .003), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.86, P = .004), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86, P = .008), and locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS) (HR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.90, P = .01). In addition, TPF-based IC plus CCRT mainly increased risks of grade 3/4 acute hematological toxicity and non-hematological toxicities like leukopenia (OR = 1.84, 95% CI: 0.42-8.03, P = .42), neutropenia (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 0.23-13.82, P = .58), thrombocytopenia (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.53-5.81, P = .35), febrile neutropenia (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 0.07-101.89, P = .58), vomiting (OR = 18.94, 95% CI: 0.99-362.02, P = .05) and dry mouth (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 0.22-22.57, P = .50), which were uncomplicated and manageable. CONCLUSIONS: TPF + CCRT is superb than CCRT alone for the management of LA-NPC. However, TPF+CCRT increases the incidences of grade 3/4 acute hematological toxicity and some non-hematological toxicities.

4DCT and CBCT based PTV margin in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy(SBRT) of non-small cell lung tumor adhered to chest wall or diaphragm.

BACKGROUND: Large tumor motion often leads to larger treatment volumes, especially the lung tumor located in lower lobe and adhered to chest wall or diaphragm. The purpose of this work is to investigate the impacts of planning target volume (PTV) margin on Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Subjects include 20 patients with the lung tumor located in lower lobe and adhered to chest wall or diaphragm who underwent SBRT. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) were acquired at simulation to evaluate the tumor intra-fractional centroid and boundary changes, and Cone-beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) were acquired during each treatment to evaluate the tumor inter-fractional set-up displacement. The margin to compensate for tumor variations uncertainties was calculated with various margin calculated recipes published in the exiting literatures. RESULTS: The means (±standard deviation) of tumor centroid changes were 0.16 (±0.13) cm, 0.22 (±0.15) cm, and 1.37 (±0.81) cm in RL, AP, and SI directions, respectively. The means (±standard deviation) of tumor edge changes were 0.21 (±0.18) cm, 0.50 (±0.23) cm, and 0.19 (±0.44) cm in RL, AP, and SI directions, respectively. The means (±standard deviation) of tumor set-up displacement were 0.03 (±0.24) cm, 0.02 (±0.26) cm, and 0.02 (±0.43) cm in RL, AP, and SI directions, respectively. The PTV margin to compensate for lung cancer tumor variations uncertainties were 0.88, 0.98 and 2.68 cm in RL, AP and SI directions, which were maximal among all margin recipes. CONCLUSIONS: 4DCT and CBCT imaging are appropriate to account for the tumor intra-fractional centroid, boundary variations and inter-fractional set-up displacement. The PTV margin to compensate for lung cancer tumor variations uncertainties can be obtained. Our results show that a conventional 1.0 cm margin in the SI plane dose not suffice to compensate the geometrical variety of the tumor located in lower lobe and adhered to chest wall and diaphragm.