Radiotherapy of Breast Cancer in Laterally Tilted Prone vs. Supine Position: What about the Internal Mammary Chain?

BACKGROUND: In the multimodal breast-conserving curative therapy of some high-risk breast cancer patients, extended external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) not only to the breast but also to the supraclavicular fossa and the internal mammary chain (parasternal region (PSR)) is indicated. We report a dosimetric study on the EBRT of the breast ("B") and the breast including PSR ("B + PSR"), comparing the supine and the laterally tilted prone patient positions in free breathing. METHODS: The planning CT scans of 20 left- and 20 right-sided patients were analyzed. EBRT plans were calculated with 3D conformal EBRT (3D) and with intensity-modulated EBRT (IMRT) for "B" and "B + PSR" in the prone and supine positions. The mean and threshold doses were computed. The quality of EBRT plans was compared with an overall plan assessment factor (OPAF), comprising three subfactors, homogeneity, conformity, and radiogenic exposure of OAR. RESULTS: In the EBRT of "B", prone positioning significantly reduced the exposure of the OARs "heart" and "ipsilateral lung" and "lymphatic regions". The OPAF was significantly better in the prone position, regardless of the planning technique or the treated breast side. In the EBRT of "B + PSR", supine positioning significantly reduced the OAR "heart" exposure but increased the dose to the OARs "ipsilateral lung" and "lymphatic regions". There were no significant differences for the OPAF, independent of the irradiated breast side. Only the IMRT planning technique increased the chance of a comparatively good EBRT plan. CONCLUSION: Free breathing prone positioning significantly improves plan quality in the EBRT of the breast but not in the EBRT of the breast + PSR.

Low-dose external beam radiotherapy for greater trochanteric pain syndrome : Target volume definition and treatment outcome.

PURPOSE: Low-dose external beam radiotherapy (ED-EBRT) is frequently used in the therapy of refractory greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). As studies reporting treatment results are scarce, we retrospectively analyzed our own patient collectives. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 60 patients (74 hips) received LD-EBRT (6 × 0.5 Gy in 29 hips, 6 × 1 Gy in 45). The endpoint was the patient's reported subjective response to treatment. The influence of different patient and treatment characteristics on treatment outcome was investigated. RESULTS: At the end of LD-EBRT, 69% reported partial remission, 4% complete remission, no change 28%. A total of 3 months later (n = 52 hips), the results were 37, 33, and 30% and 18 months after LD-EBRT (n = 47) 21, 51, and 28%. In univariate analysis "inclusion of the total femoral head into the PTV" and "night pain before LD-EBRT" were correlated with symptom remission at the end of LD-EBRT, while "initial increase in pain during LD-EBRT" was significantly associated with treatment failure. In multivariable modeling "initial increase in pain" was identified as a risk factor for treatment failure (p = 0.007; odds ratio [OR] 0.209; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.048-0.957), while "night pain" was an independent factor for remission (p = 0.038; OR 3.484; 95% CI 1.004-12.6). Three months after LD-EBRT "night pain" and "inclusion of the complete femoral neck circumference into the PTV" were predictive for remission. CONCLUSION: LD-EBRT represents a useful treatment option for patients suffering from GTPS. Three months after therapy two-thirds of the patients reported a partial or complete symptom remission. Especially patients who suffered from nocturnal pain seemed to benefit. Treatment appeared to be more effective when the entire circumference of the femoral neck was encompassed.

The field size matters: low dose external beam radiotherapy for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis : Importance of field size.

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose radiotherapy (RT) for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (rhizarthrosis). The responses of 84 patients (n = 101 joints) were analyzed 3 months after therapy (n = 65) and at 12 months (n = 27). Patients were treated with 6 fractions of 1 Gy, two times a week, with a linear accelerator. At the end of therapy, about 70 % of patients reported a response (partial remission or complete remission), 3 months later about 60 %, and 1 year after treatment 70 %. In univariate regression analysis, higher patient age and field size greater than 6 × 4 cm were associated with response to treatment, while initial increase of pain under treatment was predictive for treatment failure. Duration of RT series (more than 18 days), gender, time of symptoms before RT, stress pain or rest pain, or prior ortheses use, injections, or surgery of the joint were not associated with treatment efficacy. In multivariate regression analysis, only field size and initial pain increase were highly correlated with treatment outcome. In conclusion, RT represents a useful treatment option for patients suffering from carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. In contrast to other benign indications, a larger field size (>6 × 4 cm) seems to be more effective than smaller fields and should be evaluated in further prospective studies.

Effect of field size and length of plantar spur on treatment outcome in radiation therapy of plantar fasciitis: the bigger the better?

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is well established in the treatment of painful plantar fasciitis or heel spur. A retrospective analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of field definition on treatment outcome and to determine the impact of factors potentially involved. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A review of treatment data of 250 patients (285 heels) with a mean follow-up time of 11 months showed that complete symptom remission occurred in 38%, partial remission in 32%, and no change in 19% (11% were lost to follow-up). Variables such as radiologic evidence of plantar spurs, their length, radiation dose, field size, age, sex, and onset of pain before administration of radiation therapy were investigated in univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Treatment response depended upon age >53 years, length of heel spur ≤6.5 mm (or no radiologic evidence of a heel spur), and onset of pain <12 months before radiation therapy. Patients with these clinical prerequisites stood a 93% chance of clinical response. Without these prerequisites, only 49% showed any impact. No influence of field size on treatment outcome became evident. CONCLUSION: Patients with short plantar heel spurs benefit from radiation therapy equally well as patients without any radiologic evidence. Moreover, smaller field sizes have the same positive effect as commonly used large field definitions covering the entire calcaneal bone. This leads to a recommendation of a considerable reduction of field size in future clinical practice.