A multicentre observational study evaluating image-guided radiotherapy for more accurate partial-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy: comparison with standard imaging technique
Authors: Harris Emma J , Mukesh Mukesh , Jena Rajesh , Baker Angela , Bartelink Harry , Brooks Corrinne , Dean June , Donovan Ellen M , Collette Sandra , Eagle Sally , Fenwick John D , Graham Peter H , Haviland Jo S , Kirby Anna M , Mayles Helen , Mitchell Robert A , Perry Rosalind , Poortmans Philip , Poynter Andrew , Shentall Glyn , Titley Jenny , Thompson Alistair , Yarnold John R , Coles Charlotte E , Evans Philip M ,   on behalf of the IMPORT Trials Management Group
Published: November 2014

BackgroundWhole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) is the standard treatment for breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery. Evidence shows that tumour recurrences occur near the original cancer: the tumour bed. New treatment developments include increasing dose to the tumour bed during WBRT (synchronous integrated boost) and irradiating only the region around the tumour bed, for patients at high and low risk of tumour recurrence, respectively. Currently, standard imaging uses bony anatomy to ensure accurate delivery of WBRT. It is debatable whether or not more targeted treatments such as synchronous integrated boost and partial-breast radiotherapy require image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) focusing on implanted tumour bed clips (clip-based IGRT).ObjectivesPrimary – to compare accuracy of patient set-up using standard imaging compared with clip-based IGRT. Secondary – comparison of imaging techniques using (1) tumour bed radiotherapy safety margins, (2) volume of breast tissue irradiated around tumour bed, (3) estimated breast toxicity following development of a normal tissue control probability model and (4) time taken.DesignMulticentre observational study embedded within a national randomised trial: IMPORT-HIGH (Intensity Modulated and Partial Organ Radiotherapy – HIGHer-risk patient group) testing synchronous integrated boost and using clip-based IGRT.SettingFive radiotherapy departments, participating in IMPORT-HIGH.ParticipantsTwo-hundred and eighteen patients receiving breast radiotherapy within IMPORT-HIGH.InterventionsThere was no direct intervention in patients’ treatment. Experimental and control intervention were clip-based IGRT and standard imaging, respectively. IMPORT-HIGH patients received clip-based IGRT as routine; standard imaging data were obtained from clip-based IGRT images.Main outcome measuresDifference in (1) set-up errors, (2) safety margins, (3) volume of breast tissue irradiated, (4) breast toxicity and (5) time, between clip-based IGRT and standard imaging.ResultsThe primary outcome of overall mean difference in clip-based IGRT and standard imaging using daily set-up errors was 2–2.6 mm (p < 0.001). Heterogeneity testing between centres found a statistically significant difference in set-up errors at one centre. For four centres (179 patients), clip-based IGRT gave a mean decrease in the systematic set-up error of between 1 mm and 2 mm compared with standard imaging. Secondary outcomes were as follows: clip-based IGRT and standard imaging safety margins were less than 5 mm and 8 mm, respectively. Using clip-based IGRT, the median volume of tissue receiving 95% of prescribed boost dose decreased by 29 cm3(range 11–193 cm3) compared with standard imaging. Difference in median time required to perform clip-based IGRT compared with standard imaging was X-ray imaging technique dependent (range 8–76 seconds). It was not possible to estimate differences in breast toxicity, the normal tissue control probability model indicated that for breast fibrosis maximum radiotherapy dose is more important than volume of tissue irradiated.Conclusions and implications for clinical practiceMargins of less than 8 mm cannot be used safely without clip-based IGRT for patients receiving concomitant tumour bed boost, as there is a risk of geographical miss of the tumour bed being treated. In principle, smaller but accurately placed margins may influence local control and toxicity rates, but this needs to be evaluated from mature clinical trial data in the future.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme.