Incidental irradiation of internal mammary lymph nodes in breast cancer: conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy versus conformal three-dimensional radiotherapy

• Autor(a) principal: Leite,Elton Trigo Teixeira
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Outros Autores: Ugino,Rafael Tsuneki, Santana,Marco Antônio, Ferreira,Denis Vasconcelos, Lopes,Maurício Russo, Pelosi,Edilson Lopes, Silva,João Luis Fernandes da, Carvalho,Heloisa de Andrade
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842016000300008
• topic: Lymph nodes/radiation effects; Lymphatic irradiation; Breast neoplasms; Radiotherapy

Abstract Objective: To evaluate incidental irradiation of the internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) through opposed tangential fields with conventional two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) radiotherapy techniques and to compare the results between the two techniques. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of 80 breast cancer patients in whom radiotherapy of the IMLNs was not indicated: 40 underwent 2D radiotherapy with computed tomography for dosimetric control, and 40 underwent 3D radiotherapy. The total prescribed dose was 50.0 Gy or 50.4 Gy (2.0 or 1.8 Gy/day, respectively). We reviewed all plans and defined the IMLNs following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recommendations. For the IMLNs, we analyzed the proportion of the volume that received 45 Gy, the proportion of the volume that received 25 Gy, the dose to 95% of the volume, the dose to 50% of the volume, the mean dose, the minimum dose (Dmin), and the maximum dose (Dmax). Results: Left-sided treatments predominated in the 3D cohort. There were no differences between the 2D and 3D cohorts regarding tumor stage, type of surgery (mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery, or mastectomy with immediate reconstruction), or mean delineated IMLN volume (6.8 vs. 5.9 mL; p = 0.411). Except for the Dmin, all dosimetric parameters presented higher mean values in the 3D cohort (p < 0.05). The median Dmax in the 3D cohort was 50.34 Gy. However, the mean dose to the IMLNs was 7.93 Gy in the 2D cohort, compared with 20.64 Gy in the 3D cohort. Conclusion: Neither technique delivered enough doses to the IMLNs to achieve subclinical disease control. However, all of the dosimetric parameters were significantly higher for the 3D technique.