Comparison of prone and supine positioning for breast cancer radiotherapy using REQUITE data: dosimetry, acute and two years physician and patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients receive whole breast radiotherapy in a supine position. However, two randomised trials showed lower acute toxicity in prone position. Furthermore, in most patients, prone positioning reduced doses to the organs at risk. To confirm these findings, we compared toxicity outcomes, photographic assessment, and dosimetry between both positions using REQUITE data. METHODS: REQUITE is an international multi-centre prospective observational study that recruited 2069 breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Data on toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and dosimetry were collected, as well as a photographic assessment. A matched case control analysis compared patients treated prone (n = 268) versus supine (n = 493). Exact matching was performed for the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, boost, lymph node irradiation, chemotherapy and fractionation, and the nearest neighbour for breast volume. Primary endpoints were dermatitis at the end of radiotherapy, and atrophy and cosmetic outcome by photographic assessment at two years. RESULTS: At the last treatment fraction, there was no significant difference in dermatitis (p = .28) or any HRQoL domain, but prone positioning increased the risk of breast oedema (p < .001). At 2 years, patients treated in prone position had less atrophy (p = .01), and higher body image (p < .001), and social functioning (p < .001) scores. The photographic assessment showed no difference in cosmesis at 2 years (p = .22). In prone position, mean heart dose (MHD) was significantly lower for left-sided patients (1.29 Gy vs 2.10 Gy, p < .001) and ipsilateral mean lung dose (MLD) was significantly lower for all patients (2.77 Gy vs 5.89 Gy, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prone radiotherapy showed lower MLD and MHD compared to supine position, although the risk of developing breast oedema during radiotherapy was higher. At 2 years the photographic assessment showed no difference in the cosmetic outcome, but less atrophy was seen in prone-treated patients and this seems to have a positive influence on the HRQoL domain of body image.

Genome-wide association study of treatment-related toxicity two years following radiotherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Up to a quarter of breast cancer patients treated by surgery and radiotherapy experience clinically significant toxicity. If patients at high risk of adverse effects could be identified at diagnosis, their treatment could be tailored accordingly. This study was designed to identify common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with toxicity two years following whole breast radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed in 1,640 breast cancer patients with complete SNP, clinical, treatment and toxicity data, recruited across 18 European and US centres into the prospective REQUITE cohort study. Toxicity data (CTCAE v4.0) were collected at baseline, end of radiotherapy, and annual follow-up. A total of 7,097,340 SNPs were tested for association with the residuals of toxicity endpoints, adjusted for clinical, treatment co-variates and population substructure. RESULTS: Quantile-quantile plots showed more associations with toxicity above the p < 5 × 10-5 level than expected by chance. Eight SNPs reached genome-wide significance. Nipple retraction grade ≥ 2 was associated with the rs188287402 variant (p = 2.80 × 10-8), breast oedema grade ≥ 2 with rs12657177 (p = 1.12 × 10-10), rs75912034 (p = 1.12 × 10-10), rs145328458 (p = 1.06 × 10-9) and rs61966612 (p = 1.23 × 10-9), induration grade ≥ 2 with rs77311050 (p = 2.54 × 10-8) and rs34063419 (p = 1.21 × 10-8), and arm lymphoedema grade ≥ 1 with rs643644 (p = 3.54 × 10-8). Heritability estimates across significant endpoints ranged from 25% to 39%. Our study did not replicate previously reported SNPs associated with breast radiation toxicity at the pre-specified significance level. CONCLUSIONS: This GWAS for long-term breast radiation toxicity provides further evidence for significant association of common SNPs with distinct toxicity endpoints.

Prone Breast and Lymph Node Irradiation in 5 or 15 Fractions: A Randomized 2 × 2 Design Comparing Dosimetry, Acute Toxicity, and Set-Up Errors.

PURPOSE: Prone whole breast irradiation results in lower dose to organs at risk compared with supine position, especially lung dose. However, the adoption of prone position for whole breast irradiation + lymph node irradiation remains limited and data on lymph node irradiation in 5 fractions are lacking. Although the study was ended prematurely for the primary endpoint (breast retraction at 2 years), we decided to report acute toxicity for prone and supine positions and 5 and 15 fractions. Additionally, dosimetry and set-up accuracy between prone and supine positions were evaluated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A randomized open-label factorial 2 × 2 design was used for an acute toxicity comparison between prone and supine positions and 5 and 15 fractions. The primary endpoint of the trial was breast retraction 2 years after treatment. In total, 57 patients were evaluated. Dosimetry and set-up errors were compared between prone and supine positions. All patients were positioned on either our in -house developed prone crawl breast couch or a Posirest-2 (Civco). RESULTS: No difference in acute toxicity between prone and supine positions was found, but 5 fractions did result in a lower risk of desquamation (15% vs 41%; P = .04). Prone positioning resulted in lower mean ipsilateral lung dose (2.89 vs 4.89 Gy; P < .001), mean thyroid dose (3.42 vs 6.61 Gy; P = .004), and mean contralateral breast dose (0.41 vs 0.54 Gy; P = .007). No significant difference in mean heart dose (0.90 vs 1.07 Gy; P = .22) was found. Set-up accuracy was similar between both positions. CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, the primary endpoint of the trial was not met due to premature closure of the trial. Acceleration in 5 fractions resulted in a lower risk of desquamation. Prone positioning did not influence acute toxicity or set-up accuracy, but did result in lower ipsilateral mean lung dose, thyroid dose, and contralateral breast dose.

Comparison of supine or prone crawl photon or proton breast and regional lymph node radiation therapy including the internal mammary chain.

We report on a dosimetrical study comparing supine (S) and prone-crawl (P) position for radiotherapy of whole breast (WB) and loco-regional lymph node regions, including the internal mammary chain (LN_IM). Six left sided breast cancer patients were CT-simulated in S and P positions and four patients only in P position. Treatment plans were made using non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT) or pencil beam scanning intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Dose prescription was 15*2.67 Gy(GyRBE). The average mean heart doses for S or P VMAT were 5.6 or 4.3 Gy, respectively (p = 0.16) and 1.02 or 1.08 GyRBE, respectively for IMPT (p = 0.8; p < 0.001 for IMPT versus VMAT). The average mean lung doses for S or P VMAT were 5.91 or 2.90 Gy, respectively (p = 0.002) and 1.56 or 1.09 GyRBE, respectively for IMPT (p = 0.016). In high-risk patients, average (range) thirty-year mortality rates from radiotherapy-related cardiac injury and lung cancer were estimated at 6.8(5.4-9.4)% or 3.8(2.8-5.1)% for S or P VMAT (p < 0.001), respectively, and 1.6(1.1-2.0)% or 1.2(0.8-1.6)% for S or P IMPT (p = 0.25), respectively. Radiation-related mortality risk could outweigh the ~8% disease-specific survival benefit of WB + LN_IM radiotherapy for S VMAT but not P VMAT. IMPT carries the lowest radiation-related mortality risks.

Potential benefits of crawl position for prone radiation therapy in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate crawl position with the arm at the treated side alongside the body and at the opposite side above the head for prone treatment in patients requiring breast and regional lymph node irradiation. METHODS: Patient support devices for crawl position were built for CT simulation and treatment. An asymmetric fork design resulted from an iterative process of prototype construction and testing. The fork's large horn supports the hemi-thorax, shoulder, and elevated arm at the nontreated side and the head. The short, narrow horn supports the arm at the treated side. Between both horns, the treated breast and its regional lymph nodes are exposed. Endpoints were pain, comfort, set-up precision, beam access to the breast and lymph nodes, and plan dose metrics. Pain and comfort were tested by volunteers (n = 9); set-up precision, beam access, and plan dose metrics were tested by means of a patient study (n = 10). The AIO™ (Orfit, Wijnegem, Belgium) prone breastboard (AIO™) was used as a reference regarding comfort and set-up precision. RESULTS: Pain at the sternum, the ipsilateral shoulder, upper arm, and neck was lower in crawl position than with bilateral arm elevation on AIO™. Comfort and set-up precision were better on the crawl prototype than on AIO™. In crawl position, beam directions in the coronal and near-sagittal planes have access to the breast or regional lymph nodes without traversing device components. Plan comparison between supine and crawl positions showed better dose homogeneity for the breast and lymph node targets and dose reductions to all organs at risk for crawl position. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy for breast and regional lymph nodes in crawl position is feasible. Good comfort and set-up precision were demonstrated. Planning results support the hypothesis that breast and regional lymph nodes can be treated in crawl position with less dose to organs at risk and equal or better dose distribution in the target volumes than in supine position. The crawl technique is a candidate methodology for further investigation for patients requiring breast and regional lymph node irradiation.

Does an integrated boost increase acute toxicity in prone hypofractionated breast irradiation? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety of a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in combination with prone hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 167 patients were randomized between WBI with a sequential boost (SeB) or SIB. All patients were treated in prone position to 40.05Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast. In the control arm, a SeB of 10Gy in 4 fractions (negative surgical margins) or 14.88Gy in 6 fractions (transsection) was prescribed. In the experimental arm a SIB of 46.8 or 49.95Gy (negative and positive surgical margins, respectively) was prescribed. RESULTS: Patient age was the only significantly different parameter between treatment arms with patients in the SIB arm being slightly older. In both arms, 6/83 patients developed moist desquamation. Grade 2/3 dermatitis was significantly more frequent in the SeB arm (38/83vs 24/83 patients, p=0.037). In the SIB and SeB arm, respectively, 36 patients (43%) and 51 patients (61%) developed pruritus (p=0.015). The incidence of oedema was lower in the SIB arm (59vs 68 patients), but not statistically significant (p=0.071). CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint, moist desquamation, was not significantly different between treatment arms.

The 2-Year Cosmetic Outcome of a Randomized Trial Comparing Prone and Supine Whole-Breast Irradiation in Large-Breasted Women.

PURPOSE: To report the 2-year cosmetic outcome of a randomized trial comparing prone and supine whole-breast irradiation in large-breasted patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred patients with a (European) cup size ≥C were included. Before and 2 years after radiation therapy, clinical endpoints were scored and digital photographs were taken with the arms alongside the body and with the arms elevated 180°. Three observers rated the photographs using the 4-point Harvard cosmesis scale. Cosmesis was also evaluated with the commercially available Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment.cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up data and photographs were available for 94 patients (47 supine treated and 47 prone treated). Patient and treatment characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. A worsening of color change occurred more frequently in the supine than in the prone cohort (19/46 vs 10/46 patients, respectively, P=.04). Five patients in the prone group (11%) and 12 patients in the supine group (26%) presented with a worse scoring of edema at 2-year follow-up (P=.06). For retraction and fibrosis, no significant differences were found between the 2 cohorts, although scores were generally worse in the supine cohort. The cosmetic scoring by 3 observers did not reveal differences between the prone and supine groups. On the photographs with the hands up, 7 patients in the supine group versus none in the prone group had a worsening of cosmesis of 2 categories using the BCCT.org software (P=.02). CONCLUSION: With a limited follow-up of 2 years, better cosmetic outcome was observed in prone-treated than in supine-treated patients.