Purpose Patients undergoing external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) receive permanent tattoos to aid with daily setup alignment and verification. With the advent of three‐dimensional (3D) body surface imaging and two‐dimensional (2D) x‐ray imaging‐based matching to surgical clips, tattoos may not be necessary to ensure setup accuracy. We compared the accuracy of conventional tattoo‐based setups to a patient setup without tattoos. Materials/methods Twenty consecutive patients receiving APBI at our institution from July 10, 2017 to February 13, 2018 were identified. All patients received tattoos per standard of care. Ten patients underwent setup using tattoos for initial positioning followed by surface imaging and 2D matching of surgical clips. The other ten patients underwent positioning using surface imaging followed by 2D matching without reference to tattoos. Overall setup time and orthogonal x‐ray‐based shifts after surface imaging per fraction were recorded. Shift data were used to calculate systematic and random error. Results Among ten patients in the “no tattoo” group, the average setup time per fraction was 6.83 min vs 8.03 min in the tattoo cohort (P < 0.01). Mean 3D vector shifts for patients in the “no tattoo” group were 4.6 vs 5.9 mm in the “tattoo” cohort (P = NS). Mean systematic errors in the “no tattoo” group were: 1.2 mm (1.5 mm SD) superior/inferior, 0.5 mm (1.6 mm SD) right/left, and 2.3 mm (1.9 mm SD) anterior/posterior directions. Mean systematic errors in the “tattoo” group were: 0.8 mm (2.2 mm SD) superior/inferior, 0.3 mm (2.5 mm SD) right/left, and 1.4 mm (4.4 mm SD) anterior/posterior directions. The random errors in the “no tattoo” group ranged from 0.6 to 0.7 mm vs 1.2 to 1.7 mm in the “tattoo” group. Conclusions Using both surface imaging and 2D matching to surgical clips provides excellent accuracy in APBI patient alignment and setup verification with reduced setup time relative to the tattoo cohort. Skin‐based tattoos may no longer be warranted for patients receiving external beam APBI.
Purpose To determine the accuracy of a surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for positioning of breast cancer patients in breath-hold (BH) with respect to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Secondly, to evaluate the thorax position stability during BHs with SGRT, when using an air-volume guidance system. Methods and materials Eighteen left-sided breast cancer patients were monitored with SGRT during CBCT and treatment, both in BH. CBCT scans were matched on the target volume and the patient surface. The setup error differences were evaluated, including with linear regression analysis. The intra-fraction variability and stability of the air-volume guided BHs were determined from SGRT measurements. The variability was determined from the maximum difference between the different BH levels within one treatment fraction. The stability was determined from the difference between the start and end position of each BH. Results SGRT data correlated well with CBCT data. The correlation was stronger for surface-to-CBCT (0.61) than target volume-to-CBCT (0.44) matches. Systematic and random setup error differences were ≤ 2 mm in all directions. The 95% limits of agreement (mean ± 2SD) were 0.1 ± 3.0, 0.6 ± 4.1 and 0.4 ± 3.4 mm in the three orthogonal directions, for the surface-to-CBCT matches. For air-volume guided BHs, the variability detected with SGRT was 2.2, 2.8 and 2.3 mm, and the stability − 1.0, 2.1 and 1.5 mm, in three orthogonal directions. Furthermore, the SGRT system could detect unexpected patient movement, undetectable by the air-volume BH system. Conclusion With SGRT, left-sided breast cancer patients can be positioned and monitored continuously to maintain position errors within 5 mm. Low intra-fraction variability and good stability can be achieved with the air-volume BH system, however, additional patient position information is available with SGRT, that cannot be detected with air-volume BH systems.
PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of proton beam radiation therapy (RT) for patients with breast cancer who require regional nodal irradiation. METHODS Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who required postoperative RT to the breast/chest wall and regional lymphatics and who were considered suboptimal candidates for conventional RT were eligible. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 or higher radiation pneumonitis (RP) or any grade 4 toxicity within 3 months of RT. Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional failure, overall survival, and acute and late toxicities per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Strain echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers were obtained before and after RT to assess early cardiac changes. RESULTS Seventy patients completed RT between 2011 and 2016. Median follow-up was 55 months (range, 17 to 82 months). Of 69 evaluable patients, median age was 45 years (range, 24 to 70 years). Sixty-three patients (91%) had left-sided breast cancer, two had bilateral breast cancer, and five had right-sided breast cancer. Sixty-five (94%) had stage II to III breast cancer. Sixty-eight (99%) received systemic chemotherapy. Fifty (72%) underwent immediate reconstruction. Median dose to the chest wall/breast was 49.7 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and to the internal mammary nodes, 48.8 Gy (relative biological effectiveness), which indicates comprehensive coverage. Among 62 surviving patients, the 5-year rates for locoregional failure and overall survival were 1.5% and 91%, respectively. One patient developed grade 2 RP, and none developed grade 3 RP. No grade 4 toxicities occurred. The unplanned surgical re-intervention rate at 5 years was 33%. No significant changes in echocardiography or cardiac biomarkers after RT were found. CONCLUSION Proton beam RT for breast cancer has low toxicity rates and similar rates of disease control compared with historical data of conventional RT. No early cardiac changes were observed, which paves the way for randomized studies to compare proton beam RT with standard RT.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.