OL Oncology Letters 1792-1074 1792-1082 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/ol.2023.13916 OL-26-2-13916 Articles Safety of hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy for early breast cancer: A preliminary report LeeJeong Won 1 ChungMi Joo 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, North Gyeongsang 42472, Republic of Korea Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanyang University Hanmaeum Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Gyeongsangnam 51139, Republic of Korea Correspondence to: Dr Mi Joo Chung, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanyang University Hanmaeum Changwon Hospital, 8 Yongdong-ro 57 beon-gil, Uichang, Changwon, Gyeongsangnam 51139, Republic of Korea, E-mail: 79mjwithu@gmail.com 08 2023 15 06 2023 26 2 330 02022023 31052023 Copyright: © Lee et al. 2023 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The present study attempts to evaluate the acute and subacute toxicities of hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (HFX–VMAT) in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). It is a retrospective analysis of 23 patients treated with HFX–VMAT after breast-conserving surgery between September 2021 and February 2022. A total dose of 50.05 to 52.55 Gy was delivered, consisting of 40.05 Gy to the ipsilateral whole breast in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy and a tumor bed boost dose of 10–12.5 Gy in 4–5 fractions. The primary endpoint was acute/subacute radiation pneumonitis (RP). The secondary endpoint was poor cosmesis, indicating acute/subacute radiation dermatitis. Chest computed tomography (CT) and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0 were used to assess acute and subacute RP and dermatitis, respectively, during radiotherapy (RT) and at 3- and 6-months post-RT. The median follow-up duration was 3.8 months (range, 2.3-4.2). A total of seven patients developed RP. None of these patients presented RP-related symptoms; the diagnosis was based on radiologic findings observed on follow-up chest CT. Among the seven patients with RP, five had right-sided, and two had left-sided breast tumors (71.4 vs. 28.6%; P=0.026). Grade 1 erythema was observed in 19 patients (82.6%) and grade 2 erythema in four (17.4%). The mean target dose, D105% (the dose received by 105% of the target volume), homogeneity index, mean lung dose, ipsilateral lung V20 (the percentage volume receiving 20 Gy), and V30 (the percentage volume receiving 30 Gy) for ipsilateral whole breast RT were significantly associated with RP (P=0.039, 0.047, 0.018, 0.015, 0.018 and 0.003, respectively.). HFX–VMAT showed tolerable acute/subacute toxicities. Therefore, HFX–VMAT is an effective and safe treatment option for EBC.

 acute toxicity breast cancer hypofractionated radiotherapy radiation dermatitis radiation pneumonitis volumetric modulated arc therapy Funding: No funding was received. Introduction

Breast-conserving surgery followed by breast irradiation has become the standard therapy for patients with early breast cancer (EBC) (1). In 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), tangentially opposed beams deliver radiation to the ipsilateral whole breast. However, ipsilateral whole breast irradiation results in acute toxicities to organs at risk (OAR), such as the ipsilateral lung and heart (2). As such, considerable efforts have been made to minimize the irradiation dose to adjacent normal tissues to avoid acute and long-term adverse effects in patients with breast cancer.

Recently, the paradigm of radiotherapy (RT) for patients with EBC has been changing from conventional 3DCRT to hypofractionated (HFX) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). HFX–IMRT, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), can improve the accuracy of radiation delivery. In addition, HFX-RT can shorten the duration of RT, which is highly beneficial to patients (3). HFX-RT also has comparable results to conventional RT regarding local control rate and skin toxicity (4–7). Existing studies (4,5,8–11), which include the treatment results of various RT techniques, fields, or doses, demonstrate that despite the improvement in RT technology, there are still concerns about the side effects on adjacent normal organs. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the acute and subacute RT toxicities of patients with EBC who underwent breast-only HFX–VMAT at a single institution. It also investigated the prognostic factors of radiation physics related to radiation pneumonitis (RP) and dermatitis.

 Materials and methods <sec> <title>Patients

The present study included 23 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery and HFX–VMAT between September 2021 and February 2022 at Hanyang University Hanmaeum Changwon Hospital (Changwon, South Korea). The inclusion criteria were as follows: i) Histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer; ii) EBC with pathologic tumor (T) staging of Tis to T2 and node-negative staging, according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (12); iii) no prior RT to the thorax; and iv) the presence of follow-up chest computed tomography (CT). The study was approved by the Korean National Institute for Bioethics Policy (approval no. P01-202207-01-025). Patient and tumor characteristics are given in Table I.

 Simulation and treatment planning

All patients underwent CT simulation in the supine position and both arms were immobilized using a wing board. Free breathing was facilitated during the simulation and each treatment. In all cases, the prescribed dose to the ipsilateral whole breast was 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy, 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The dose for tumor bed boost was 10 Gy in 4 fractions for clear resection margins and 12.5 Gy in 5 fractions for close or positive resection margins, using 2.5 Gy per fraction for 1 week. A total of 3 patients received electron-boost RT, while the remainder received boost RT using VMAT. None of the patients received regional nodal irradiation. The VMAT plan in the current study consisted of two partial arc beams that geometrically resembled the breast. The arrangement of the beams was optimized to lower the OAR doses while improving the planning target volume (PTV) coverage by resembling the breast shape using tangential arcs. The axillary nodal area was not included in the PTV. The VMAT treatment plans were produced by the Monaco RTP system (Elekta Instrument AB Stockholm) using an Elekta Versa HD treatment machine (Elekta Instrument AB Stockholm) with 5 mm multileaf collimators (MLC) for modeling. A total of two tangential photon arcs of 6 MV with arc lengths of 240°, were applied to attain the prescribed dose (Fig. 1). The optimization plan produced by the Monaco RTP system provided >95% coverage of the target isodose and minimized the OAR tolerance dose. The dynamic MLC arc moved in the range of acute angles based on the angle of incidence of the lungs. Thus, the radiation dose to the ipsilateral lung was minimized. The dose for OAR was limited as follows: for the ipsilateral lung, V5 (the percentage volume receiving 5 Gy) <0%, V10 (the percentage volume receiving 10 Gy) <35%, and V20 (the percentage volume receiving 20 Gy) <20%, mean heart dose <Gy and mean dose for contralateral breast <2 Gy.

 Clinical and dosimetric analysis

Acute toxicities were defined during treatment and within 6 months post-RT. Regular follow-up visits and chest CTs were performed at 3 and 6 months post-RT. Lung and skin toxicities were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0 (13). The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were analyzed as follows: CI=VRI/TV (where VRI and TV are the reference isodose volume and target volume, respectively), and HI=Imax/RI (where Imax and RI are the maximum isodose in the target and reference isodoses, respectively) (14). The OAR dose and volume related to RP were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.19 (IBM Corp.). P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

 Results <sec> <title>Clinical analysis

Patient and tumor characteristics are summarized in Table I. None of the patients had underlying lung disease or a history of smoking. Among the 23 patients, eight had right-sided breast tumors and 15 had left-sided breast tumors. A total of 12 patients (52.2%) received 12.5 Gy in 5 fractions due to close or positive resection margins. Three patients received electron-boost RT; the remainder received boost RT using VMAT. The median follow-up duration was 10.1 months (range, 7.6-11.9). RP developed in seven patients (30.4%) at a median of 3.8 months (range, 2.3-4.2) post-treatment. None of these patients presented with RP-related symptoms; the diagnosis was based on radiologic findings observed on follow-up chest CT. Among the seven patients with RP, five had right-sided breast tumors, and two had left-sided breast tumors (71.4 vs. 28.6%, P=0.026). Grade 1 erythema was observed in 19 patients (82.6%), and four presented with grade 2 erythema (17.4%).

 Dosimetric analysis

The RT characteristics are listed in Table II. In this study, the median ipsilateral whole breast target volume was 418.1 cm3 (range, 196.7-978.7), and the median ipsilateral tumor bed target volume was 79.7 cm3 (range, 38.5-277.6). In the univariate analysis (Table III), the mean target dose, D105% (the dose received by 105% of the target volume), HI, mean lung dose, and ipsilateral lung V20 and V30 for ipsilateral whole breast RT were significantly associated with RP (P=0.039, 0.047, 0.018, 0.015, 0.018 and 0.003, respectively).

 Discussion

The current study investigated the acute and subacute toxicities of HFX–VMAT in patients with EBC. It showed tolerable skin reactions of grade 2 or less and the occurrence of asymptomatic RP (30.4%). The present study identified a correlation of the following dosimetric factors with RP: Mean target dose, D105%, HI, mean lung dose and ipsilateral lung V20 and V30 for ipsilateral whole breast RT.

Traditionally, the radiation dose schedule for ipsilateral whole breast consisted of 45–50.4 Gy in fractions of 1.8–2 Gy over 5 weeks. In radiobiological terms, the α/β ratio is one of determinants of radiosensitivity, and breast cancer has a relatively low α/β ratio of 4 Gy (8). Therefore, breast cancer responds more sensitively to radiation therapy when the fraction size is larger than conventional fraction sizes. The START trial (7), a long-term follow-up HFX-RT study, showed the local control rate in breast cancer treatment with HFX-RT to be equivalent, with fewer or no differences in side effects to previous studies on conventional fractionation. Based on these studies (7,15,16), HFX-RT has been established as the standard treatment, with 40–40.5 Gy in 15–16 fractions for the ipsilateral whole breast (17). In 2018, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) (18) recommended an HFX regimen of 40 Gy in 15 fractions or 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. The biologically effective doses in these regimens (17,18), computed by the linear-quadratic model and using α/β=4 for breast cancer, were equivalent to 44.8-48.9 Gy in fractions of 1.8 Gy.

RP, an acute inflammatory reaction with exudation in the alveolar space, develops within 4–12 weeks of breast RT and can result in changes in radiologic findings or lung function (19–23). Symptomatic RP includes dry cough, dyspnea, chest discomfort, or mild fever. A number of studies have reported a relationship between the risk of RP and dosimetric parameters, including total radiation dose, fractionation, mean lung dose and irradiated lung volume, such as V5, V10, V20, and V30 (22,24,25). Advanced techniques, such as IMRT, VMAT and helical tomotherapy, can improve dosimetry and reduce acute toxicities through the RT planning process (26,27); thus, they are also useful in HFX-RT. In the present study, irradiated lung volume was restricted to reduce the risk of RP. The radiation dose constraints for the ipsilateral lung in the current study fall within the ranges of lung cancer RT guidelines (28). Several studies have also tried to control the OAR dose, especially to prevent RP (27–30) and showed an OAR dose constraint range comparable to that of the current study.

Based on published data (26–32), the current study applied the valid lung dosing constraints to plan HFX–VMAT. For OAR, the doses were limited as follows: For ipsilateral lung, V5 <50%, V10 <35% and V20 <20%; mean heart dose <3 Gy; and mean contralateral breast dose <2 Gy. It is widely reported that limiting dosimetric parameters, such as V20 or V30, contributes to reducing the risk of RP (27,29). In the VMAT study with simultaneous integrated boost (32), which prescribed 40.5 and 48 Gy in 15 fractions to the ipsilateral whole breast and tumor bed boost, respectively, certain dose limits were established. The mean dose limits were defined as <10 Gy and V20 <10% for the ipsilateral lung, while the mean heart dose was limited to <4 Gy. When planning RT, the current study restricted V5 of the ipsilateral lung with a median value of 38.18%, which provided evidence that a low radiation dose induces RP (30,33). McKenzie et al (34) prescribed 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions and set lung constraints at 30–35% for V17.5, which, in HFX regimens, is radiobiologically equivalent to V20 in conventional regimens. Following their HFX regimen, they reported a range of 24–36% of V17.5 and two cases of RP. In 2018, ASTRO recommended that, in HFX regimens, the V16 of the ipsilateral lungs be limited to 15–20% (18). In the current study, the V20 of the ipsilateral lungs ranged from 3.01 to 13.31%, falling within the ASTRO guidelines.

The primary limitations of the current study are the small sample size and the focus on acute/subacute toxicity. The factors that caused radiation pneumonitis included interstitial lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. The present study included only two cases with histories of diabetes, due to its small sample size, and thus there was no statistically significant analysis of diabetes and radiation pneumonitis. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a follow-up study with a larger sample size. The present study also showed that RP did not occur in the group with a high mean dose of breast target. It is hypothesized that the inclination of clinicians to prioritize lung dose reduction is reflected in the selection of RT plans to satisfy the condition of target isodose coverage of more than 95%. During the RT planning stage, the current study conducted a comparison of multiple RT plans. Among these plans, it selected one that achieved a target isodose coverage of over 95% while further reducing the lung dose. However, rather than focusing just on the tumor, it chose a plan with a relatively lower mean lung dose. In the process of lowering the mean lung dose, the lung constraint was given more weight, resulting in higher mean and maximum target dose.

However, the strengths of the current study are that it was conducted at a single institution and focused on a single radiation technique, HFX–VMAT. The VMAT technique is widely used to treat various cancers, and the HFX-RT schedule has been applied to breast cancer treatment (35,36). Thus, the focus of the current study on HFX–VMAT is novel and provides convincing data for the literature. The data on long-term follow-up after HFX-RT in EBC is lacking, especially for IMRT, including VMAT, despite reports of late toxicity, such as fibrosis and secondary malignancy (7,26,27,32,37). Further research would be helpful in identifying the long-term treatment outcomes after HFX-RT in EBC.

In conclusion, the current study demonstrated tolerable acute and subacute toxicities following HFX–VMAT and the correlation between its dosimetric parameters with RP in EBC patients. It suggested that HFX–VMAT can be an effective and safe treatment option for EBC and that RT planning must be considered to reduce the incidence of RP. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to determine the long-term outcomes following HFX-RT.

 Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

 Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

 Authors' contributions

MC and JL confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. MC and JL designed the study and performed the analysis and interpretation of data. JL drafted the manuscript. MC conceived the review and revised the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the manuscript.

 Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Korean National Institute for Bioethics Policy (approval no. P01-202207-01-025).

 Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

 Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 References FisherBAndersonSBryantJMargoleseRGDeutschMFisherERJeongJHWolmarkNTwenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancerN Engl J Med34712331241200210.1056/NEJMoa02215212393820 Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)DarbySMcGalePCorreaCTaylorCArriagadaRClarkeMCutterDDaviesCEwertzMEffect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: Meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trialsLancet37817071716201110.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-222019144 RudatVNourAHammoudMGhaidaSABetter compliance with hypofractionation vs. conventional fractionation in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy: Results of a single, institutional, retrospective study: Results of a single, institutional, retrospective studyStrahlenther Onkol193375384201710.1007/s00066-017-1115-z28233048 YarnoldJAshtonABlissJHomewoodJHarperCHansonJHavilandJBentzenSOwenRFractionation sensitivity and dose response of late adverse effects in the breast after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: Long-term results of a randomised trialRadiother Oncol75917200510.1016/j.radonc.2005.01.00515878095 START Trialists' GroupBentzenSMAgrawalRKAirdEGABarrettJMBarrett-LeePJBentzenSMBlissJMBrownJDewarJAThe UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: A randomised trialLancet37110981107200810.1016/S0140-6736(08)60348-718355913 HopwoodPHavilandJSSumoGMillsJBlissJMYarnoldJRSTART Trial Management GroupComparison of patient-reported breast, arm, and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trialsLancet Oncol11231240201010.1016/S1470-2045(09)70382-120138809 HavilandJSOwenJRDewarJAAgrawalRKBarrettJBarrett-LeePJDobbsHJHopwoodPLawtonPAMageeBJThe UK standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trialsLancet Oncol1410861094201310.1016/S1470-2045(13)70386-324055415 OwenJRAshtonABlissJMHomewoodJHarperCHansonJHavilandJBentzenSMYarnoldJREffect of radiotherapy fraction size on tumour control in patients with early-stage breast cancer after local tumour excision: Long-term results of a randomised trialLancet Oncol7467471200610.1016/S1470-2045(06)70699-416750496 START Trialists' GroupBentzenSMAgrawalRKAirdEGABarrettJMBarrett-LeePJBlissJMBrownJDewarJADobbsHJThe UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: A randomised trialLancet Oncol9331341200810.1016/S1470-2045(08)70077-918356109 AttarMABahadurYAConstantinescuCTEltaherMMLung dose analysis in loco-regional hypofractionated radiotherapy of breast cancerSaudi Med J37631637201610.15537/smj.2016.6.1400827279508 LinaresITovarMIZuritaMGuerreroRExpósitoMDel MoralRHypofractionated breast radiation: Shorter scheme, lower toxicityClin Breast Cancer16262268201610.1016/j.clbc.2015.09.01226454613 ByrdDRBrooklandRKWashingtonMKGershenwaldJEComptonCCHessKRSullivanDCJessupJMPart XI BreastAJCC Cancer Staging ManualAminMBEdgeSBGreeneFL8th editionSpringer International PublishingHeidelberg, Germany5896362017 U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 5.0https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5×7.pdfJune12023 PetrovaDSmickovskaSLazarevskaEConformity index and homogeneity index of the postoperative whole breast radiotherapyOpen Access Maced J Med Sci5736739201710.3889/oamjms.2017.16129123573 WhelanTJPignolJPLevineMNJulianJAMacKenzieRParpiaSShelleyWGrimardLBowenJLukkaHLong-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancerN Engl J Med362513520201010.1056/NEJMoa090626020147717 OffersenBVAlsnerJNielsenHMJakobsenEHNielsenMHKrauseMStenbygaardLMjaalandISchreiberAKastiUMHypofractionated versus standard fractionated radiotherapy in patients with early breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ in a randomized phase III trial: The DBCG HYPO trialJ Clin Oncol3836153625202010.1200/JCO.20.0136332910709 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN GuidelinesBreast Cancerhttps://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1419June212022 SmithBDBellonJRBlitzblauRFreedmanGHafftyBHahnCHalbergFHoffmanKHorstKMoranJRadiation therapy for the whole breast: Executive summary of an American society for radiation oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelinePract Radiat Oncol8145152201810.1016/j.prro.2018.01.01229545124 KrengliMSaccoMLoiGMasiniLFerranteDGambaroGRoncoMMagnaniCCarrieroAPulmonary changes after radiotherapy for conservative treatment of breast cancer: a prospective studyInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys7014601467200810.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.05017931797 VerbanckSHanonSSchuermansDVan ParijsHVinh-HungVMiedemaGVerellenDStormeGFontaineCLamoteJMild lung restriction in breast cancer patients after hypofractionated and conventional radiation therapy: A 3-year follow-upInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys95937945201610.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.00827302510 HananiaANMainwaringWGhebreYTHananiaNALudwigMRadiation-induced lung injury: Assessment and managementChest156150162201910.1016/j.chest.2019.03.03330998908 MehnatiPGhorbanipoorMMohammadzadehMMotlaghBNMesbahiAPredicting the risk of radiation pneumonitis and pulmonary function changes after breast cancer radiotherapyJ Biomed Phys Eng11459464202134458193 KonkolMŚniatałaPMileckiPRadiation-induced lung injury-what do we know in the era of modern radiotherapy?Rep Pract Oncol Radiother27552565202236186693 MarksLBBentzenSMDeasyJOKongFMSBradleyJDVogeliusISEl NaqaIHubbsJLLebesqueJVTimmermanRDRadiation dose-volume effects in the lungInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys76S70S76201010.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.09120171521 McKenzieERazviYWronskiMZhangLBosnicSVespriniDPaszatLRakovitchEDrostLYeeCTrends and correlates of mean lung dose in patients receiving breast radiotherapy in a single institution from 2014 to 2018Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)32647655202010.1016/j.clon.2020.05.01032540281 DicuonzoSLeonardiMCRaimondiSCorraoGBagnardiVGerardiMAMorraAZerellaMAZaffaroniMPansiniFAcute and intermediate toxicity of 3-week radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost using TomoDirect: Prospective series of 287 early breast cancer patientsClin Transl Oncol2314151428202110.1007/s12094-020-02538-w33537865 JagsiRGriffithKAMoranJMMatuszakMMMarshRGrubbMAbu-IsaEDilworthJTDominelloMMHeimburgerDComparative effectiveness analysis of 3D-conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with breast cancerInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys112643653202210.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.05334634437 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN GuidelinesNon-Small Cell Lung Cancerhttps://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1450September262022 GoldmanUBWennbergBSvaneGBylundHLindPReduction of radiation pneumonitis by V20-constraints in breast cancerRadiat Oncol599201010.1186/1748-717X-5-9921034456 DoiYNakaoMMiuraHOzawaSKenjoMNagataYHybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy for postoperative breast cancer including regional lymph nodes: the advantage of dosimetric data and safety of toxicitiesJ Radiat Res61747754202010.1093/jrr/rraa05732785596 LeeBMChangJSKimSYKeumKCSuhCOKimYBHypofractionated radiotherapy dose scheme and application of new techniques are associated to a lower incidence of radiation pneumonitis in breast cancer patientsFront Oncol10124202010.3389/fonc.2020.0012432117771 FranceschiniDFogliataASpotoRDominiciLLo FaroLFranzeseCComitoTLobefaloFReggioriGCozziLLong term results of a phase II trial of hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer with volumetric modulated arc therapy and simultaneous integrated boostRadiother Oncol1645056202110.1016/j.radonc.2021.09.00634537289 WangSLiaoZWeiXLiuHHTuckerSLHuCSMohanRCoxJDKomakiRAnalysis of clinical and dosimetric factors associated with treatment-related pneumonitis (TRP) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with concurrent chemotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT)Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys6613991407200610.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.133716997503 McKenzieERazviYBosnicSWronskiMKaramIVespriniDRakovitchESolimanHWongGChowECase series of radiation pneumonitis in breast cancerJ Med Imaging Radiat Sci53167174202210.1016/j.jmir.2021.11.00834896065 OtsukaKOtsukaMItayaTMatsumotoASatoRSagaraYOgaMAsayamaYRisk factors for rectal bleeding after volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of prostate cancerRep Pract Oncol Radiother281523202310.5603/RPOR.a2023.001037122916 WuKXuXLiXWangJZhuLChenXWangBZhangMXiaBMaSRadiation pneumonitis in lung cancer treated with volumetric modulated arc therapyJ Thorac Dis1065316539201810.21037/jtd.2018.11.13230746197 NajasGFStuartSRMartaGNTeixeiraLABde Carvalho GicoVSeranteARMauroGPLimaMCde Andrade CarvalhoHHypofractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer: A 10-year single institution experienceRep Pract Oncol Radiother26920927202110.5603/RPOR.a2021.010934992864

Image of isodose evaluation of left breast coverage by a hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy plan: (A) axial image, (B) coronal image and (C) sagittal image.

Patient and tumor characteristics (n=23).

Characteristic Value
Age, yearsa 50 (31–66)
Site, n (%)
  Right 8 (34.8)
  Left 15 (65.2)
Pathological tumor stage, n (%)
  Tis 4 (17.4)
  T1 14 (60.9)
  T2 5 (21.7)
Pathological nodal stage, n (%)
  Yes 2 (8.7)
  No 21 (91.3)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, n (%)
  Yes 2 (8.7)
  No 21 (91.3)
Adjuvant chemotherapy, n (%)
  Yes 3 (13)
  No 20 (87)
Hormone therapy, n (%)
  Yes 20 (87)
  No 3 (13)
Resection margin, n (%)
  Negative 11 (47.8)
  Close or positive 12 (52.2)
Ipsilateral whole breast target volume, cm3a 418.07 (196.67-978.71)
Ipsilateral tumor bed target volume, cm3a 79.66 (38.48-277.56)

Median (range).

Radiotherapy characteristics (n=23).

A, Ipsilateral whole breast target
Characteristic Median (range)
Mean target dose, Gy 40.19 (39.35–40.91)
  D95%, % 95.69 (95.01–98.31)
  D105%, % 5 (0–5)
  CI 0.96 (0.95–0.98)
  HI 1.15 (1.10–1.18)
Mean lung dose, Gy 6.68 (4.08–8.56)
  Lung V5 Gy, % 38.18 (22.44–49.98)
  Lung V10 Gy, % 20.14 (12.56–33.14)
  Lung V20 Gy, % 7.32 (3.01–13.31)
  Lung V30 Gy, % 1.24 (0.03–5.03)
Mean heart dose, Gy 0.47 (0.05–1.12)
  Heart Dmax, Gy 1.93 (0.28–4.19)
B, Ipsilateral tumor bed target
Characteristic Median (range)
Mean target dose, Gy 12.32 (9.85–13.12)
  D95%, % 96.08 (92.56–99.65)
  D105%, % 0 (0–99.27)
  D110%, % 0 (0–98.19)
  CI 0.96 (0.93–1.00)
  HI 1.16 (1.09–1.53)
Mean lung dose, Gy 1.01 (0.11–1.88)
Lung V5 Gy, % 1.34 (0–5.33)
Lung V10 Gy, % 0 (0–0.05)
Mean heart dose, Gy 0.47 (0.05–1.12)
  Heart Dmax, Gy 1.93 (0.28–4.19)

D95%, dose received by 95% of the target volume; D105%, dose received by 105% of the target volume; CI, conformity index; HI, homogeneity index; V5 Gy, percentage volume receiving 5 Gy; V10 Gy, percentage volume receiving 10 Gy; V20 Gy, percentage volume receiving 20 Gy; V30 Gy, percentage volume receiving 30 Gy; Dmax, maximum dose; D110%, dose received by 110% of the target volume.

Univariate analysis of factors for radiation pneumonitis and dosimetry.

Radiation pneumonitis
No Yes
Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) P-value
Ipsilateral whole breast target
  Volume 443.04 (219.44) 421.96 (151.66) 0.871
  Mean target dose, Gy 40.24 (0.31) 40.00 (0.36) 0.039
    D95%, % 95.97 (0.95) 95.55 (0.63) 0.154
    D105%, % 3.26 (2.22) 2.18 (2.64) 0.047
    CI 0.96 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01) 0.871
    HI 1.15 (0.01) 1.13 (0.02) 0.018
  Mean lung dose, Gy 6.35 (1.11) 7.14 (0.72) 0.015
  Ipsilateral lung V5 Gy, % 36.63 (8.40) 39.23 (3.27) 0.974
  Ipsilateral lung V10 Gy, % 20.08 (5.28) 21.94 (2.99) 0.118
  Ipsilateral lung V20 Gy,% 7.47 (2.42) 9.60 (3.70) 0.018
  Ipsilateral lung V30 Gy, % 1.34 (1.24) 3.27 (2.16) 0.003
Ipsilateral tumor bed target
  Volume
    Mean target dose (Gy) 11.29 (1.32) 12.00 (1.36) 0.018
    D95% (%) 96.14 (2.04) 96.41 (1.55) 0.341
    D105% (%) 5.21 (15.19) 14.91 (37.22) 0.222
    D110% (%) 0.88 (3.44) 14.03 (37.11) 0.922
    CI 0.96 (0.02) 0.97 (0.01) 0.341
    HI 1.14 (0.05) 1.21 (0.14) 0.198
Mean lung dose, Gy 1.04 (0.47) 0.83 (0.50) 0.922
Ipsilateral lung V5 Gy, % 1.85 (1.73) 1.65 (1.55) 0.123
Ipsilateral lung V10 Gy,% 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.02) 0.118

D95%, dose received by 95% of the target volume; D105%, dose received by 105% of the target volume; CI, conformity index; HI, homogeneity index; V5 Gy, percentage volume receiving 5 Gy; V10 Gy, percentage volume receiving 10 Gy; V20 Gy, percentage volume receiving 20 Gy; V30 Gy, percentage volume receiving 30 Gy; D110%, dose received by 110% of the target volume.