BackgroundProne whole breast irradiation (WBI) leads to reduced heart and lung doses in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. In this feasibility trial, we investigated the prone position for whole breast + lymph node irradiation (WB + LNI).MethodsA new support device was developed for optimal target coverage, on which patients are positioned in a position resembling a phase from the crawl swimming technique (prone crawl position). Five left sided breast cancer patients were included and simulated in supine and prone position. For each patient, a treatment plan was made in prone and supine position for WB + LNI to the whole axilla and the unoperated part of the axilla. Patients served as their own controls for comparing dosimetry of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) in prone versus in supine position.ResultsTarget volume coverage differed only slightly between prone and supine position. Doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in prone position for ipsilateral lung (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), contralateral lung (Dmean, D2), contralateral breast (Dmean, D2 and for total axillary WB + LNI also V5), thyroid (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), oesophagus (Dmean and for partial axillary WB + LNI also D2 and V5), skin (D2 and for partial axillary WB + LNI V105 and V107). There were no significant differences for heart and humeral head doses.ConclusionsProne crawl position in WB + LNI allows for good breast and nodal target coverage with better sparing of ipsilateral lung, thyroid, contralateral breast, contralateral lung and oesophagus when compared to supine position. There is no difference in heart and humeral head doses.Trial registrationNo trial registration was performed because there were no therapeutic interventions.

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.

PurposeTo 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.MethodsPatient 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.ResultsPain 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.ConclusionsRadiation 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.

Prone positioning for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) reduces dose to organs at risk, but reduces set-up speed, precision, and comfort. We aimed to improve these problems by placing patients in prone crawl position on a newly developed crawl couch (CrC). A group of 10 right-sided breast cancer patients requiring WBI were randomized in this cross-over trial, comparing the CrC to a standard prone breastboard (BB). Laterolateral (LL), craniocaudal (CC) and anterioposterior (AP) set-up errors were evaluated with cone beam CT. Comfort, preference and set-up time (SUT) were assessed. Forty left and right-sided breast cancer patients served as a validation group. For BB versus CrC, AP, LL and CC mean patient shifts were − 0.8 ± 2.8, 0.2 ± 11.7 and − 0.6 ± 4.4 versus − 0.2 ± 3.3, − 0.8 ± 2.5 and − 1.9 ± 5.7 mm. LL shift spread was reduced significantly. Nine out of 10 patients preferred the CrC. SUT did not differ significantly. The validation group had mean patient shifts of 1.7 ± 2.9 (AP), 0.2 ± 3.6 (LL) and − 0.2 ± 3.3 (CC) mm. Mean SUT in the validation group was 1 min longer (P < 0.05) than the comparative group. Median SUT was 3 min in all groups. The CrC improved precision and comfort compared to BB. Set-up errors compare favourably to other prone-WBI trials and rival supine positioning.

Although many authors stated that a user-centred design approach in medical device development has added values, the most common research approach within healthcare is evidence-based medicine, which tend to focus on functional data rather than patient wellbeing and comfort. End user comfort is well addressed in literature for commercial products such as seats and hand tools but no data was found for medical devices. A commercial patient support device for breast radiotherapy was analysed and a relation was found between discomfort and uncompensated internal body forces. Derived from CT-images, simplified patient free-body diagrams were analysed and pain and comfort evaluated. Subsequently, a new patient position was established and prototypes were developed. Patient comfort- and prototype optimization was done through iterative prototyping. With this approach, we were able to compensate all internal body forces and establish a force neutral patient free-body diagram. This resulted in comfortable patient positioning and favourable medical results.