Advertisement

Feasibility study of defining planning target volume using surgical margins in permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy

  • Claire Zhang
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer – Kelowna, 399 Royal Ave, Kelowna, BC V1Y 5L3, Canada. Tel: +1-250-899-5512.
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer – Kelowna, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada

    Department of Computer Science, Mathematics, Physics and Statistics, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Michelle Hilts
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer – Kelowna, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada

    Department of Computer Science, Mathematics, Physics and Statistics, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Deidre Batchelar
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer – Kelowna, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada

    Department of Computer Science, Mathematics, Physics and Statistics, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Juanita Crook
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer – Kelowna, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada

    Department of Surgery, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 13, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2022.09.005

      Abstract

      PURPOSE

      This study investigates the feasibility and potential impacts of utilizing a Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology (GEC ESTRO) recommended surgical margin-based planning margin in permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) brachytherapy.

      METHODS AND MATERIALS

      Seventy-nine patients were included in this retrospective study. Three margin selections were used for PTV construction: (1) 1.25 or 1.5 cm isotropic margin (PTVPBSI), (2) 2 cm minus surgical margin in each direction as recommended by GEC ESTRO (PTVaniso), and (3) 2 cm minus minimum surgical margin isotropically (PTViso). PTV volume and dose coverage using clinical PBSI plans were compared across three groups. New PBSI plans were constructed on PTVaniso for 20 patients and planning parameters were compared to original plans constructed on PTVPBSI.

      RESULTS

      Twenty patients had surgical margins in six directions reported, with a median value of 8 mm anteriorly, and 10 mm in all other directions. PTVaniso (36.3 ± 15.0 cc) was overall smaller than PTVPBSI (55.6 ± 14.3 cc), p value < 0.05. PBSI clinical plans showed satisfactory coverage on PTVaniso, with a median (range) V100 of 97.9% (85.8%–100.0%). Comparing to original treatment plans, new plans constructed on PTVaniso reduced the number of implant seeds and skin dose.

      CONCLUSIONS

      Clinical PBSI plans provide satisfactory coverage of GEC ESTRO recommended PTVs. In this patient cohort, GEC ESTRO planning margin resulted in smaller target volumes, and therefore, new plans constructed on PTVaniso required fewer implanted seeds and lower skin doses were achieved. However, given PBSI delivery uncertainties, further investigations are required to determine if the GEC ESTRO planning margin will be sufficiently robust.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Brachytherapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pignol J.P.
        • Keller B.
        • Rakovitch E.
        • Sankreacha R.
        • Easton H.
        • Que W.
        First report of a permanent breast 103Pd seed implant as adjuvant radiation treatment for early-stage breast cancer.
        International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2006; 64: 176-181https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.031
        • Pignol J.P.
        • Caudrelier J.M.
        • Crook J.
        • McCann C.
        • Truong P.
        • Verkooijen H.A.
        Report on the Clinical Outcomes of Permanent Breast Seed Implant for Early-Stage Breast Cancers.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 93: 614-621https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.2266
        • Crook J.
        • Hilts M.
        • Batchelar D.
        • et al.
        Permanent breast seed implant for partial breast radiotherapy after partial mastectomy for favorable breast cancer: Technique, results, and applications to various seroma presentations.
        Brachytherapy. 2019; 18: 510-520https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2019.04.003
        • Pignol J.P.
        • Rakovitch E.
        • Keller B.M.
        • Sankreacha R.
        • Chartier C.
        Tolerance and Acceptance Results of a Palladium-103 Permanent Breast Seed Implant Phase I/II Study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73: 1482-1488https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.06.1945
        • Pignol J.
        • Keller B.M.
        • Rakovitch E.
        • Ravi A.
        • Chan G.
        • Mashouf S.
        Long-term Results of Adjuvant Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation using Permanent 103-Palladium Seed Implants.
        Int J Radiat Oncol. 2011; 81: S226https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.421
        • Keller B.M.
        • Ravi A.
        • Sankreacha R.
        • Pignol J.P.
        Permanent breast seed implant dosimetry quality assurance.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 84-92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.030
        • Vicini F.A.
        • Kestin L.L.
        • Goldstein N.S.
        Defining the clinical target volume for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and accelerated partial breast irradiation: A pathologic analysis.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 60: 722-730https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.04.012
        • Major T.
        • Gutiérrez C.
        • Guix B.
        • Van Limbergen E.
        • Strnad V.
        • Polgár C.
        Recommendations from GEC ESTRO Breast Cancer Working Group (II): Target definition and target delineation for accelerated or boost partial breast irradiation using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy after breast conserving open cavity surgery.
        Radiother Oncol. 2016; 118: 199-204https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.006
        • Hilts M.
        • Batchelar D.
        • Rose J.
        • Crook J.
        Deformable image registration for defining the postimplant seroma in permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy.
        Brachytherapy. 2015; 14: 409-418https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2014.11.003
        • Njeh C.F.
        • Saunders M.W.
        • Langton C.M.
        Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI): A review of available techniques.
        Radiat Oncol. 2010; 5: 1-28https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-90
        • Mannino M.
        • Yarnold J.
        Accelerated partial breast irradiation trials: Diversity in rationale and design.
        Radiother Oncol. 2009; 91: 16-22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.011
        • Vicini F.A.
        • Cecchini R.S.
        • White J.R.
        • et al.
        Long-term primary results of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: a randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial.
        Lancet. 2019; 394: 2155-2164https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32514-0
        • Keller B.M.
        Guidelines for Permanent Breast Seed Implant Dosimetry.
        Int J Radiat Oncol. 2011; 81: S252https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1730
        • Kader H.A.
        • Truong P.T.
        • Pai R.
        • et al.
        When Is CT-Based Postoperative Seroma Most Useful to Plan Partial Breast Radiotherapy? Evaluation of Clinical Factors Affecting Seroma Volume and Clarity.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72: 1064-1069https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.049
        • Jacobson G.
        • Betts V.
        • Smith B.
        Change in volume of lumpectomy cavity during external-beam irradiation of the intact breast.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 1161-1164https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.02.009
        • Oh K.S.
        • Kong F.M.
        • Griffith K.A.
        • Yanke B.
        • Pierce L.J.
        Planning the breast tumor bed boost: Changes in the excision cavity volume and surgical scar location after breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66: 680-686https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.042
        • Berrang T.S.
        • Truong P.T.
        • Popescu C.
        • et al.
        3D Ultrasound Can Contribute to Planning CT to Define the Target for Partial Breast Radiotherapy.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73: 375-383https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.041
        • Morton D.
        • Batchelar D.
        • Hilts M.
        • Berrang T.
        • Crook J.
        Incorporating three-dimensional ultrasound into permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy treatment planning.
        Brachytherapy. 2017; 16: 167-173https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2016.09.007
        • Zhang C.
        • Hilts M.
        • Batchelar D.
        • et al.
        Characterization and registration of 3D ultrasound for use in permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy treatment planning.
        Brachytherapy. 2021; 20: 248-256https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2020.07.010
        • Morton D.
        • Hilts M.
        • Batchelar D.
        • Crook J.
        Seed placement in permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy: Are concerns over accuracy valid?.
        Int J Radiat Oncol. 2016; 95: 1050-1057https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.049
        • Watt E.
        • Skarsgard M.
        • Roumeliotis M.
        • Husain S.
        • Meyer T.
        Post-implant analysis in permanent breast seed implant: Automated plan reconstruction using simulated annealing.
        J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2019; 11: 61-68https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2019.83338
        • Watt E.
        • Guebert A.
        • Quirk S.
        • Skarsgard M.
        • Roumeliotis M.
        • Meyer T.
        Tracking Post-Implant Seed Migration in Permanent Breast Seed Implant.
        Brachytherapy. 2018; 17: S50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2018.04.077
        • Watt E.
        • Conroy L.
        • Peacock M.
        • et al.
        Appropriate timing for postimplant imaging in permanent breast seed implant: Results from a serial CT study.
        Brachytherapy. 2018; 17: 609-614https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2018.01.006
        • Guebert A.
        • Roumeliotis M.
        • Watt E.
        • Meyer T.
        • Quirk S.
        Dosimetric consequences of seed placement accuracy in permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy.
        Brachytherapy. 2021; 20: 664-672https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2020.11.008