RESUMO
Purpose: To assess sinoatrial node (SAN) and atrioventricular node (AVN) doses for breast cancer (BC) patients treated with 3D-CRT and evaluate whether "large" cardiac structures (whole heart and four cardiac chambers) would be relevant surrogates. Material and methods: This single center study was based on 116 BCE patients (56 left-sided, 60 right-sided) treated with 3D-CRT without respiratory gating strategies and few IMN irradiations from 2009 to 2013. The heart, the left and right ventricles (LV, RV), the left and right atria (LA, RA) were contoured using multi-atlases for auto-segmentation. The SAN and the AVN were manually delineated using a specific atlas. Based on regression analysis, the coefficients of determination (R2) were estimated to evaluate whether "large" cardiac structures were relevant surrogates (R2 > 0.70) of SAN and AVN doses. Results: For left-sided BC, mean doses were: 3.60 ± 2.28 Gy for heart, 0.47 ± 0.24 Gy for SAN and 0.74 ± 0.29 Gy for AVN. For right-sided BC, mean heart dose was 0.60 ± 0.25 Gy, mean SAN dose was 1.57 ± 0.63 Gy (>85 % of patients with SAN doses > 1 Gy) and mean AVN dose was 0.51 ± 0.14 Gy. Among all "large" cardiac structures, RA appeared as the best surrogate for SAN doses (R2 > 0.80). Regarding AVN doses, the RA may also be an interesting surrogate for left-sided BC (R2 = 0.78), but none of "large" cardiac structures appeared as relevant surrogates among right-sided BC (all R2 < 0.70), except the LA for patients with IMN (R2 = 0.83). Conclusions: In BC patients treated 10 years ago with 3D-CRT, SAN and AVN exposure was moderate but could exceed 1 Gy to the SAN in many right-sided patients with no IMN-inclusion. The RA appeared as an interesting surrogate for SAN exposure. Specific conduction nodes delineation remains necessary by using modern radiotherapy techniques.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Among cardiac complications of breast cancer radiotherapy (BC RT), there are very limited data on arrhythmia and conduction disorders, in particular severe cases requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). Therefore, this exploratory study aimed to evaluate the risk of PPMI for BC patients treated with RT, compared with the general population and with BC patients not treated with RT. METHODS: The study was performed on a 1/97 representative sample of the French health care database (EGB database). Adult women with a first BC treated with or without RT between 2008 and 2016 were included, followed until 2018, and de novo PPMI were identified. We compared the PPMI incidence in BC cohort relative to the general population with standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and evaluated the risk of PPMI in RT patients compared to patients without RT with a competing risk survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3853 BCE patients were included. Among BC patients treated with RT, 28 PPMI cases were observed compared with 13 expected cases, corresponding to a SIR of 2.18 [95% CI: 1.45-3.06]. For BC patients not treated with RT, the SIR was 1.01 [95% CI: 0.40-1.90]. Patients treated with RT showed a borderline significant higher risk of PPMI compared with those not treated with RT (subdistribution Hazard Ratio = 2.08, 95% CI 0.87-4.97, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory findings indicate that, over the last decade in France, BC patients treated with RT appeared to be at higher risk of PPMI than general population. Further studies are needed to expand on this topic.