TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging to determine internal mammary lymph node location for radiation therapy treatment planning in breast cancer patients
AU - Davidson, Tima
AU - Ben-David, Merav
AU - Galper, Shira
AU - Haskin, Tess
AU - Howes, Megan
AU - Scaife, Roland
AU - Kanana, Nayroz
AU - Amit, Uri
AU - Weizman, Noam
AU - Chikman, Bar
AU - Goshen, Elinor
AU - Ben-Haim, Simona
AU - Symon, Zvi
AU - Goldstein, Jeffrey
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016
PY - 2017/11
Y1 - 2017/11
N2 - Purpose Adjuvant internal mammary lymph node (IMN) radiation is often delivered with 2-dimensional techniques that use anatomic landmarks and predetermined depths for field placement and dose specification. In contrast, 3-dimensional planning uses the internal mammary vessels (IMVs) to localize the IMNs for planning. Our purpose was to determine if localization of the involved IMN (i-IMN) by 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) offers opportunities to improve treatment. Methods and materials Breast cancer patients (n = 80) who had i-IMNs (n = 112) on PET-CT for initial staging (n = 40) or recurrence (n = 40) were studied. Size, intercostal space (IC), and distance from skin, sternum, and IMVs were recorded. Effects on 2- and 3-dimensional planning were evaluated. Results Most i-IMNs (94.6%) were in the first to third ICs. Few were in the fourth (4.5%) or fifth (0.9%) IC. Mean i-IMN depth was 3.4 cm (range, 1.1-7.3 cm). Prescriptive depths of 4, 5, and 6 cm would result in undertreatment of 25%, 10.7%, and 5.3% of IMNs, respectively. Most IMNs (86.6%) were lateral or adjacent to the sternal edge. Only 13.4% of IMNs were posterior to the sternum. Use of the ipsilateral or contralateral sternal edge for field placement increases the risk of geographic miss or excess normal tissue exposure. Most i-IMNs were adjacent to (83%) or ≤0.5 cm (14%) from the IMV edge. Three (3%) were >0.5 cm beyond the IMV edge. The clinical target volume (CTV) defined by the first to third ICs encompassed 78% of i-IMNs. IMN-CTV coverage of i-IMNs increased with inclusion of the fourth IC (82%), 0.5 cm medial and lateral margin expansion (93%), or both (96.5%). Conclusion Two-dimensional treatment techniques risk geographic miss of IMNs and exposure of excess normal tissue to radiation. An IMN-CTV defined by the IMVs from the first to third ICs with 0.5-cm medial and lateral margin expansion encompasses almost all i-IMNs identified on PET-CT imaging. Inclusion of the fourth IC offers modest coverage improvement, and its inclusion should be weighed against potential increase in cardiac exposure. Summary The use of 2-dimensional treatment techniques for adjuvant internal mammary lymph node (IMN) radiation may cause geographic miss of tumor and expose normal tissue to radiation injury. Conformal 3-dimensional planning improves coverage and reduces risk of normal tissue damage by using the internal mammary vessel to define an IMN clinical target volume (CTV). Contouring the IMN-CTV from the first to third intercostal spaces with a 0.5-cm expansion medially and laterally encompasses most IMN. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography may have a role in radiation planning by identifying involved-IMN for dose escalation.
AB - Purpose Adjuvant internal mammary lymph node (IMN) radiation is often delivered with 2-dimensional techniques that use anatomic landmarks and predetermined depths for field placement and dose specification. In contrast, 3-dimensional planning uses the internal mammary vessels (IMVs) to localize the IMNs for planning. Our purpose was to determine if localization of the involved IMN (i-IMN) by 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) offers opportunities to improve treatment. Methods and materials Breast cancer patients (n = 80) who had i-IMNs (n = 112) on PET-CT for initial staging (n = 40) or recurrence (n = 40) were studied. Size, intercostal space (IC), and distance from skin, sternum, and IMVs were recorded. Effects on 2- and 3-dimensional planning were evaluated. Results Most i-IMNs (94.6%) were in the first to third ICs. Few were in the fourth (4.5%) or fifth (0.9%) IC. Mean i-IMN depth was 3.4 cm (range, 1.1-7.3 cm). Prescriptive depths of 4, 5, and 6 cm would result in undertreatment of 25%, 10.7%, and 5.3% of IMNs, respectively. Most IMNs (86.6%) were lateral or adjacent to the sternal edge. Only 13.4% of IMNs were posterior to the sternum. Use of the ipsilateral or contralateral sternal edge for field placement increases the risk of geographic miss or excess normal tissue exposure. Most i-IMNs were adjacent to (83%) or ≤0.5 cm (14%) from the IMV edge. Three (3%) were >0.5 cm beyond the IMV edge. The clinical target volume (CTV) defined by the first to third ICs encompassed 78% of i-IMNs. IMN-CTV coverage of i-IMNs increased with inclusion of the fourth IC (82%), 0.5 cm medial and lateral margin expansion (93%), or both (96.5%). Conclusion Two-dimensional treatment techniques risk geographic miss of IMNs and exposure of excess normal tissue to radiation. An IMN-CTV defined by the IMVs from the first to third ICs with 0.5-cm medial and lateral margin expansion encompasses almost all i-IMNs identified on PET-CT imaging. Inclusion of the fourth IC offers modest coverage improvement, and its inclusion should be weighed against potential increase in cardiac exposure. Summary The use of 2-dimensional treatment techniques for adjuvant internal mammary lymph node (IMN) radiation may cause geographic miss of tumor and expose normal tissue to radiation injury. Conformal 3-dimensional planning improves coverage and reduces risk of normal tissue damage by using the internal mammary vessel to define an IMN clinical target volume (CTV). Contouring the IMN-CTV from the first to third intercostal spaces with a 0.5-cm expansion medially and laterally encompasses most IMN. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography may have a role in radiation planning by identifying involved-IMN for dose escalation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030765820&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2016.11.001
DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2016.11.001
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 28989000
AN - SCOPUS:85030765820
SN - 1879-8500
VL - 7
SP - 373
EP - 381
JO - Practical Radiation Oncology
JF - Practical Radiation Oncology
IS - 6
ER -