A Linac IMRT Technique Versus Conventional Technique for Postmastectomy Irradiation of Chest Wall and Regional Nodes: A Case–Control Study of Acute Toxicities

J. Ma,J. Li,J. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.06.536

2013-01-01

Abstract:Conventional post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is often delivered with traditional field borders for chest wall and regional nodes. Chest wall and regional nodes delineation techniques have been discussed with available contouring guidelines, and dosimetric analyses have shown that IMRT could improve the PTV coverage and nearby normal tissues sparing; however, CT-based inverse IMRT planning to treat chest wall and nodal regions as a whole PTV has not yet been adopted into routine practice. Our preliminary data demonstrated that PMRT delivered with IMRT technique was well-tolerated by most patients. Whether IMRT technique applied in PMRT leads to similar toxicity profile to conventional technique is worthy to be investigated. We herein conduct a case-control study comparing acute toxicities in patients undergoing PMRT using a linac IMRT technique vs conventional technique. Between June 2009 and December 2010, 116 prospectively selected patients with positive axillary lymph nodes were treated with a linac IMRT technique. A total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions was delivered to the whole PTV including chest wall and supra/infraclavicular region +/- internal mammary nodes. During the same period, 170 patients, who had indications for PMRT but were treated with conventional technique (chest wall tangents, and separate anterior fields for supra/infraclavicular region +/- internal mammary nodes), were selected as controls. Of these, 52 patients received IMN irradiation in the IMRT group, and 82 in the control group. All patients were followed up regularly for up to 6 months. Acute toxicities were assessed using the common terminology of criteria for adverse effects (CTCAE v4.0) issued by the National Cancer Institutes. Differences in acute toxicities between groups were compared using chi-square test or Fisher exact test. The p values of ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The rate of Grade 2 or worse radiation dermatitis was 42.2% (49/116) in the IMRT group and 52.9% (90/170) in the control group (chi-square = 3.16; p = 0.636). The corresponding rates of Grade 3 radiation dermatitis was 12.9% and 32.3% (15 vs 55; chi-square = 74.53; p < 0.001). The site of Grade 3 dermatitis (i.e., moist desquamation other than anterior axillary skin folds) was most frequently occurred in the surgical scars (9/15) in the IMRT group, and in the overlapping area between medial tangent and IMN field (36/55) in the control group. The incidence of Grade 2 radiation pneumonitis was similar for both groups (1.7% vs 1.1%). This study reveals a lower incidence of Grade 3 radiation dermatitis in the linac IMRT group than in the control group. Patients receiving IMN irradiation are likely to benefit from this IMRT technique.