271 research outputs found

    Désescalade radiothérapique dans les cancers du sein de moins de 10 mm : quelles options ?

    Get PDF

    40. Place des pansements dans la prise en charge locale des radiodermites

    Get PDF

    Vers une radiothérapie personnalisée ?

    Get PDF

    Different meaning of the mean heart dose between 3D-CRT and IMRT for breast cancer radiotherapy

    Get PDF
    BackgroundPrevious studies in 2D and in 3D conformal radiotherapy concludes that the maximal heart distance and the mean heart dose (MHD) are considered predictive of late cardiac toxicities. As the use of inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasing worldwide, we hypothesized that this 3D MHD might not be representative of heart exposure after IMRT for breast cancer (BC).MethodsPatients with left-sided BC and unfavorable cardiac anatomy received IMRT. Their treatment plan was compared to a virtual treatment plan for 3D conformal radiotherapy with similar target volume coverage (study A). Then, a second 3D conformal treatment plan was generated to achieve equivalent individual MHD obtained by IMRT. Then the heart and left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery exposures were analyzed (study B). Last, the relationship between MHD and the heart volume or LAD coronary artery volume receiving at least 30Gy, 40Gy and 45Gy in function of each additional 1Gy to the MHD was assessed (study C).ResultsA significant decrease of heart and LAD coronary artery exposure to high dose was observed with the IMRT compared with the 3D conformal radiotherapy plans that both ensured adequate target coverage (study A). The results of study B and C showed that 3D MHD was not representative of similar heart substructure exposure with IMRT, especially in the case of high dose exposure.ConclusionsThe mean heart dose is not a representative dosimetric parameter to assess heart exposure following IMRT. Equivalent MHD values following IMRT and 3DRT BC treatment do not represent the same dose distribution leading to extreme caution when using this parameter for IMRT plan validation

    Treatment time and circadian genotype interact to influence radiotherapy side-effects. A prospective European validation study using the REQUITE cohort

    Get PDF
    Breast cancer; Circadian rhythm; RadiotherapyCáncer de mama; Ritmo circadiano; RadioterapiaCàncer de mama; Ritme circadià; RadioteràpiaBackground Circadian rhythm impacts broad biological processes, including response to cancer treatment. Evidence conflicts on whether treatment time affects risk of radiotherapy side-effects, likely because of differing time analyses and target tissues. We previously showed interactive effects of time and genotypes of circadian genes on late toxicity after breast radiotherapy and aimed to validate those results in a multi-centre cohort. Methods Clinical and genotype data from 1690 REQUITE breast cancer patients were used with erythema (acute; n=340) and breast atrophy (two years post-radiotherapy; n=514) as primary endpoints. Local datetimes per fraction were converted into solar times as predictors. Genetic chronotype markers were included in logistic regressions to identify primary endpoint predictors. Findings Significant predictors for erythema included BMI, radiation dose and PER3 genotype (OR 1.27(95%CI 1.03-1.56); P < 0.03). Effect of treatment time effect on acute toxicity was inconclusive, with no interaction between time and genotype. For late toxicity (breast atrophy), predictors included BMI, radiation dose, surgery type, treatment time and SNPs in CLOCK (OR 0.62 (95%CI 0.4-0.9); P < 0.01), PER3 (OR 0.65 (95%CI 0.44-0.97); P < 0.04) and RASD1 (OR 0.56 (95%CI 0.35-0.89); P < 0.02). There was a statistically significant interaction between time and genotypes of circadian rhythm genes (CLOCK OR 1.13 (95%CI 1.03-1.23), P < 0.01; PER3 OR 1.1 (95%CI 1.01-1.2), P < 0.04; RASD1 OR 1.15 (95%CI 1.04-1.28), P < 0.008), with peak time for toxicity determined by genotype. Interpretation Late atrophy can be mitigated by selecting optimal treatment time according to circadian genotypes (e.g. treat PER3 rs2087947C/C genotypes in mornings; T/T in afternoons). We predict triple-homozygous patients (14%) reduce chance of atrophy from 70% to 33% by treating in mornings as opposed to mid-afternoon. Future clinical trials could stratify patients treated at optimal times compared to those scheduled normally.EU-FP7
    • …
    corecore