Vega, Raymond B. Mailhot

Abstract Purpose: To determine the rate of rib fracture in a cohort of patients with breast cancer treated with proton therapy and enrolled on a prospective registry. In series investigating photon therapy for breast cancer, the rib fracture rate ranges from 0.3-13% Methods: From a prospective database, we identified patients treated with proton therapy for breast cancer at our institution between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2020. Clinical and dosimetric data was extracted from the electronic medical record. The cumulative incidence method assessed rib fracture rate; the Fine-Gray test statistic assessed prognostic significance select variables. Results: 225 patients were identified, 223 women and 2 men. Median age at the time of radiation was 57.8 years (range, 25 – 87). 26% of patients were black, 69% white and 5% were other races or race not disclosed. 5% were Hispanic. 74% of patients had left-sided breast cancer, 5% bilateral, and 21% right-sided. DEXA scan was normal in 20%, showed osteopenia in 34%, osteoporosis in 6%, and not performed in 40%. 57% of patients received antiendocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor. For 16% of patients, the breast +/- internal mammary nodes (IMN) were treated, while 32% underwent proton therapy to treat the breast and comprehensive regional lymphatics. 1% of patients had chest wall +/- IMN treated, while 51% underwent proton therapy to treat the chest wall and comprehensive regional lymphatics. 41% of patients were treated with passive scatter proton therapy (n=92); 52% of these had mastectomy. 58% of patients received treatment with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (n=131); 53% of these had mastectomy. A combination of passive scatter and PBS was used for 2 patients (1%). 85% of patients received a boost. Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.2 – 9.1). 97% of patients had > 12 months of follow-up. The 3 year cumulative incidence of in-field rib fracture was 3.7% (95%CI: 1.6%-7.1%). In total, 8 patients developed in-field rib fractures, one symptomatic and 7 identified incidentally on surveillance imaging, for a 0.4% rate of symptomatic rib fracture. Median time from completion of radiation to identification of rib fracture was 1.8 years (range, 0.4-7.4 years). Rib fractures occurred within 2.2 years from radiotherapy completion for seven of the eight patients who experienced this side effect. Three patients developed rib fractures outside of the radiation field, for a cumulative incidence of out-of-field rib fracture of 0.9% (95%CI: 0.2-3.0%). No variables were associated with rib fracture on univariate analysis. Of those with in-field rib fractures, 3 had low and 3 had normal bone density while 2 had not undergone testing; of those with out-of-field rib fractures, 2 had osteopenia and 1 did not have testing. Conclusions: Although a proton beam has higher biological dose deposition at end-of-range than the assumed constant RBE=1.1, the 3 year rate of any in-field rib fractures in our series remains low at 3.7%, with a 0.4% rate of symptomatic rib fracture. Contouring ribs as an OAR and establishing a dose constraint warrants further investigation as a means to maintaining a low rate of rib fracture with proton therapy. Citation Format: Julie Bradley, Xiaoying Liang, Raymond Mailhot Vega, Chunbo Liu, Eric Brooks, Teena Burchianti, Emma Viviers, Roi Dagan, Oluwadamilola Oladeru, Christopher Morris, Nancy Mendenhall. Incidence of rib fracture following treatment with proton therapy for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-10-08.

AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)‐weighted dose to the heart and to estimate RBE uncertainties when assuming a constant RBE of 1.1, for breast cancer patients receiving intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Further, to study the impact of RBE uncertainties on the risk of an acute coronary event (ACE).Material and methodsWe analyzed 20 patients who received IMPT to either the left breast (n = 10) or left chest wall (n = 10) and regional lymph nodes. The Monte Carlo simulation engine, MCsquare, was used to simulate the dose‐averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) map. The RBE‐weighted dose to the heart and its substructures was calculated using three different RBE models. The risk of ACE was estimated per its linear relationship with mean heart dose (MHD) as established by Darby et al.ResultsThe median MHD increased from 1.33 GyRBE assuming an RBE of 1.1 to 1.64, 1.87, and 1.99 GyRBE when using the RBE‐weighted dose models. The median values (and ranges) of the excess absolute risk of ACE were 0.4% (0.1%–0.8%) when assuming an RBE of 1.1, and 0.6% (0.2%–1.0%), 0.6% (0.2%–1.1%), and 0.7% (0.2%–1.1%) with the RBE‐weighted models. For our patient cohort, the maximum excess absolute risk of ACE increased by 0.3% with the RBE‐weighted doses compared to the constant RBE of 1.1, reaching an excess absolute ACE risk of 1.1%. The interpatient LETd variation was small for the relevant high‐dose regions of the heart.ConclusionAll three RBE models predicted a higher biological dose compared to the clinical standard dose assuming a constant RBE of 1.1. An underestimation of the biological dose results in underestimation of the ACE risk. Analyzing the voxel‐by‐voxel biological dose and the LET map alongside clinical outcomes is warranted in the development of a more accurate normal‐tissue complication probability model.

AbstractBackgroundChildren with chest wall Ewing sarcoma with malignant pulmonary effusion or pleural stranding require hemithorax radiation, often with plans that exceed lung constraints. We investigated disease control and pneumonitis in children requiring hemithorax radiation.ProcedureEleven children (median age 13 years) received hemithorax radiotherapy. Symptomatic radiation pneumonitis was considered National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1+ with respiratory symptoms. Mean lung dose (MLD), volume of lung exposed to a dose ≥5 Gy (V5), ≥20 Gy (V20), and ≥35 Gy (V35) were recorded. Adult and pediatric lung constraints were obtained from Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines and Children's Oncology Group (COG) protocols, respectively.ResultsMedian hemithorax dose was 15 Gy (1.5 Gy/fraction). Median total dose was 51 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction). Most plans delivered both protons and photons. The ipsilateral MLD, V5, and V20 were 27.2 Gy, 100%, and 48.3%; the bilateral MLD, V20, and V35 were 14.1 Gy, 22.8%, and 14.3%, respectively. One hundred percent, 36%, and 91% of treatments exceeded recommended adult ipsilateral lung constraints of V5 <65%, V20 <52%, and MLD of 22 Gy; 64%, 45%, and 82% exceeded COG bilateral lung constraints of V20 <20%, MLD <15 Gy, and MLD <12 Gy, respectively; 82% of treatments exceeded the COG ipsilateral lung constraint of V20 <30%. At a median 36 months (range 12–129), the symptomatic radiation pneumonitis incidence was 0%. Two patients progressed with nonpulmonary metastatic disease and died at a median 12 months following radiotherapy.ConclusionsExisting guidelines may overestimate pneumonitis risk, even among young children receiving multiagent chemotherapy. For children with chest wall Ewing sarcoma and other thoracic malignancies, more data are needed to refine pediatric dose–effect models for pulmonary toxicity.

Abstract Background Out‐of‐field neutron dissemination during double‐scattered proton therapy has raised concerns of increased second malignancies, disproportionally affecting pediatric patients due to the proportion of body exposed to scatter dose and inherent radiosensitivity of developing tissue. We sought to provide empiric data on the incidence of early second tumors. Methods Between 2006 and 2019, 1713 consecutive children underwent double‐scattered proton therapy. Median age at treatment was 9.1 years; 371 were ≤3 years old. Thirty‐seven patients (2.2%) had tumor predisposition syndromes. Median prescription dose was 54 Gy (range 15–75.6). Median follow‐up was 3.3 years (range 0.1–12.8), including 6587 total person‐years. Five hundred forty‐nine patients had ≥5 years of follow‐up. A second tumor was defined as any solid neoplasm throughout the body. Results Eleven patients developed second tumors; the 5‐ and 10‐year cumulative incidences were 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4–1.9%) and 3.1% (95% CI, 1.5–6.2%), respectively. Using age‐ and gender‐specific data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, the standardized incidence ratio was 13.5; the absolute excess risk was 1.5/1000 person‐years. All but one patient who developed second tumors were irradiated at ≤5 years old ( p < .0005). There was also a statistically significant correlation between patients with tumor predisposition syndromes and second tumors ( p < .0001). Excluding patients with tumor predisposition syndromes, 5‐ and 10‐year rates were 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2–1.7%) and 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7–4.0%), respectively, with all five malignant second tumors occurring in the high‐dose region. Conclusion Second tumors are rare within the decade following double‐scattered proton therapy, particularly among children irradiated at >5 years old and those without tumor predisposition syndrome.