Definition of postlumpectomy tumor bed for radiotherapy boost field planning: CT versus surgical clips.

PURPOSE To compare the location and extent of the tumor bed as defined by surgical clips and computed tomography (CT) scans, after lumpectomy, for electron boost planning as part of breast radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Planning CT images of 31 operated breasts in 30 patients who underwent lumpectomy were reviewed. One or more clips were placed in the lumpectomy cavity. Serial CT images were used to measure the depth and transverse and longitudinal dimensions. The area and geometric center of the tumor bed were defined by the clips and CT. RESULTS The CT and clip measurements were identical for the maximal tumor depth in 27 of 30 patients. The CT bed extended beyond the clips by 0-7 mm medially in the transverse/longitudinal extent (multiclip patients). The median distance between the geometric centers in the coronal plane for the tumor bed center was larger for patients with single clips than for those with multiple clips (p < 0.025). Tumor bed areas in the coronal plane defined by both methods correlated strongly. However, the CT-defined area was larger by 13.9 mm2. The CT bed was more readily visible in patients with a shorter interval between surgery and radiotherapy. CONCLUSION The maximal depth of the tumor bed was similar using the two methods. The extent and centers of the clip-and CT-determined beds differed significantly. This may indicate an underestimation of the tumor bed as defined by clips only and justifies integration of CT information in boost field planning.

[1]  J. Costantino,et al.  Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  L. Marks,et al.  Variability of the depth of supraclavicular and axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer: is a posterior axillary boost field necessary? , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  D. Yan,et al.  The validity of clips as a radiographic surrogate for the biopsy cavity in image-guided accelerated partial breast irradiation , 2003 .

[4]  H. Mouridsen,et al.  Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life-table analysis. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[5]  M. A. Hunter,et al.  Breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer: necessity for surgical clips to define the tumor bed for radiation planning. , 1996, Radiology.

[6]  C. Mansfield,et al.  Computer-CT planning of the electron boost in definitive breast irradiation. , 1991, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Breast electron boost planning: comparison of CT and US. , 2001, Radiology.

[8]  Anil Sethi,et al.  Breast boost: Are we missing the target? , 2003, Cancer.

[9]  I. Barillot,et al.  Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  B. E. F. Isher,et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. , 2002 .

[11]  Umberto Veronesi,et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  L. Marks,et al.  Variability of the location of internal mammary vessels and glandular breast tissue in breast cancer patients undergoing routine CT-based treatment planning. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  K Evans,et al.  Surgical clips in planning the electron boost in breast cancer: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  G C Bentel First place 1989 Alpha Cradle Award winner. Positioning and immobilization device for patients receiving radiation therapy for carcinoma of the breast. , 1990, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[15]  B Fisher,et al.  Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  J. Peterse,et al.  Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853 , 2000, The Lancet.

[17]  Christian Carrie,et al.  Role of a 10-Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. , 1997 .

[18]  P Okunieff,et al.  Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  A. Hanlon,et al.  Does the placement of surgical clips within the excision cavity influence local control for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and irradiation. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  Richard Sylvester,et al.  Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  G. Hanks,et al.  Inaccuracies in using the lumpectomy scar for planning electron boosts in primary breast carcinoma. , 1994, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.