PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Incidental dose distribution to contralateral internal mammary nodes in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Behzadi, S.T.* ; Duesberg, M.* ; Moser, R.* ; Duma, M.N.* ; Oechsner, M.* ; Kiesl, S.* ; Nano, J.* ; Combs, S.E. ; Borm, K.J.*

Incidental dose distribution to contralateral internal mammary nodes in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy.

Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 48:100831 (2024)

Publ. Version/Full Text

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

Background and purpose: In a relevant number of primary breast cancer patients, lymphatic drainage to the contralateral internal mammary nodes (cIMN) is being observed. Nevertheless, so far lymphatic drainage pathway to the cIMN is largely neglected during adjuvant radiotherapy. Materials and methods: This study evaluated the incidental dose to the cIMN for 120 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans for node positive breast in dependence of internal mammary node irradiation (IMNI) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH). Additionally, incidental dose distribution to the cIMN based on the field design in the MA20, EORTC22922/10925 and AMAROS trials was assessed. Results: The incidental dose (Dmean ± SD) to the cIMN-CTV was 13.0 (±4.7) Gy with a maximum dose of < 30 Gy in 113/120 cases. If IMNI was included (n = 80), the Dmean to the cIMN-CTV was significantly higher compared to no IMNI, but still comparably low (n = 40; 14.3 Gy vs. 9.6 Gy; p = 0.0001). Furthermore, the dose in the cIMN during free breathing (n = 80) was higher compared to DIBH (n = 40; 13.9 Gy vs. 11.2 Gy; p = 0.002). Simulated treatment plans based on the randomized RNI trials revealed neglectable dose coverage of the cIMN (Dmean 1.0–1.8 Gy) for all protocols. Conclusion: Neither in the randomized RNI trials nor during contemporary treatment techniques clinically relevant dose distribution to the cIMN was observed. Further studies are warranted to assess the potential impact of intended irradiation of cIMN in high-risk patients.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

2.700

0.000