Contribution of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Determining Lumpectomy Cavity in Breast Radiotherapy

Author(s): Ozlem Demircioglu*, Huseyin Tepetam, Ayfer Ay Eren, Zerrin Ozgen, Fatih Demircioglu, Erkin Aribal

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging
Formerly: Current Medical Imaging Reviews

Volume 16 , Issue 8 , 2020

Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Background: Accurate localization of the lumpectomy cavity is important for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS), but the LC localization based on CT is often difficult to delineate accurately. The study aimed to compare CT-defined LC planning to MRI-defined findings in the supine position for higher soft-tissue resolution of MRI.

Methods: Fifty-nine breast cancer patients underwent radiotherapy CT planning in supine position followed by MR imaging on the same day. LC was contoured by the radiologist and radiation oncologist together by CT and MRI separately. T2 weighted MR images and tomography findings were combined and the LC volume, mean diameter and the longest axis length were measured after contouring. Subsequently, patients were divided into two groups according to seroma in LC and the above-mentioned parameters were compared.

Results: We did not find any statistically significant difference in the LC volume, mean diameter and length at the longest axis between CT and MRI but based on the presence or absence of seroma, statistically significant differences were found in the LC volumes and the length at the longest axis of LC volumes.

Conclusion: We believe that the supine MRI in the same position with CT will be more effective for radiotherapy planning, particularly in patients without a seroma in the surgical cavity.

Keywords: Breast Cancer, magnetic resonance, lumpectomy cavity, radiotherapy, fused images, MRI.

Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: Meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 378(9804): 1707-16.
[ ] [PMID: 22019144]
Whelan TJ, Pignol JP, Levine MN, et al. Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(6): 513-20.
[ ] [PMID: 20147717]
Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(22): 3259-65.
[ ] [PMID: 17577015]
Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans P, et al. Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(19): 1378-87.
[ ] [PMID: 11794170]
Poortmans PM, Collette L, Horiot JC, et al. Impact of the boost dose of 10 Gy versus 26 Gy in patients with early stage breast cancer after a microscopically incomplete lumpectomy: 10-year results of the randomised EORTC boost trial. Radiother Oncol 2009; 90(1): 80-5.
[ ] [PMID: 18707785]
Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 366(9503): 2087-106.
[ ] [PMID: 16360786]
Machtay M, Lanciano R, Hoffman J, Hanks GE. Inaccuracies in using the lumpectomy scar for planning electron boosts in primary breast carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 30(1): 43-8.
[ ] [PMID: 8083127]
Bedwinek J. Breast conserving surgery and irradiation: The importance of demarcating the excision cavity with surgical clips. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 26(4): 675-9.
[ ] [PMID: 8331000]
Harrington KJ, Harrison M, Bayle P, et al. Surgical clips in planning the electron boost in breast cancer: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34(3): 579-84.
[ ] [PMID: 8621281]
Krawczyk JJ, Engel B. The importance of surgical clips for adequate tangential beam planning in breast conserving surgery and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43(2): 347-50.
[ ] [PMID: 10030260]
Petersen RP, Truong PT, Kader HA, et al. Target volume delineation for partial breast radiotherapy planning: Clinical characteristics associated with low interobserver concordance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69(1): 41-8.
[ ] [PMID: 17707265]
Wong EK, Truong PT, Kader HA, Nichol AM, Salter L, Petersen R, et al. Consistency in seroma contouring for partial breast radiotherapy: Impact of guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66(2): 372-6.
[ ] [PMID: 16965989]
Van de Steene J, Linthout N, de Mey J, et al. Definition of gross tumor volume in lung cancer: Inter-observer variability. Radiother Oncol 2002; 62(1): 37-49.
[ ] [PMID: 11830311]
Tai P, Van Dyk J, Yu E, Battista J, Stitt L, Coad T. Variability of target volume delineation in cervical esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42(2): 277-88.
[ ] [PMID: 9788405]
Milosevic M, Voruganti S, Blend R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: Comparison to Computed Tomography (CT) and urethrography. Radiother Oncol 1998; 47(3): 277-84.
[ ] [PMID: 9681891]
Cazzaniga LF, Marinoni MA, Bossi A, et al. Interphysician variability in defining the planning target volume in the irradiation of prostate and seminal vesicles. Radiother Oncol 1998; 47(3): 293-6.
[ ] [PMID: 9681893]
Rasch C, Keus R, Pameijer FA, et al. The potential impact of CT MRI matching on tumor volume delineation in advanced head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39(4): 841-8.
[ ] [PMID: 9369132]
Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, et al. Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non small- cell lung tumors on CT: The impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51(4): 923-31.
[ ] [PMID: 11704312]
Yang Z, Chen J, Hu W, et al. Planning the breast boost: How accurately do surgical clips represent the CT seroma? Radiother Oncol 2010; 97(3): 530-4.
[ ] [PMID: 20934763]
Wong EK, Truong PT, Kader HA, et al. Consistency in seroma contouring for partial breast radiotherapy: Impact of guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66(2): 372-6.
[ ] [PMID: 16965989]
Batumalai V, Koh ES, Delaney GP, et al. Interobserver variability in clinical target volume delineation in tangential breast irradiation: A comparison between radiation oncologists and radiation therapists. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2011; 23(2): 108-13.
[ ] [PMID: 21093228]
Goldberg H, Prosnitz RG, Olson JA, Marks LB. Definition of postlumpectomy tumor bed for radiotherapy boost field planning: CT versus surgical clips. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63(1): 209-13.
[ ] [PMID: 16111591]
Sung S, Lee JH, Lee JH, et al. Displacement of surgical clips during postoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer patients who received breast-conserving surgery. J Breast Cancer 2016; 19(4): 417-22.
[ ] [PMID: 28053630]
Landis DM, Luo W, Song J, et al. Variability among breast radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical lumpectomy cavity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67(5): 1299-308.
[ ] [PMID: 17275202]
Shang L, Liu Z, Rong Y, Zhou T, Zuo L. MRI in breast cancer radiotherapy in prone and supine positions. Front Biosci 2017; 22: 570-9.
[ ] [PMID: 27814633]
Petersen RP, Truong PT, Kader HA, et al. Target volume delineation for partial breast radiotherapy planning: clinical characteristics associated with low interobserver concordance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69(1): 41-8.
[ ] [PMID: 17707265]
Huang W, Currey A, Chen X, et al. A comparison of lumpectomy cavity delineations between use of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography acquired with patient in prone position for radiation therapy planning of breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 94(4): 832-40.
[ ] [PMID: 26972656]
Leithner D, Wengert GJ, Helbich TH, et al. Clinical role of breast MRI now and going forward. Clin Radiol 2018; 73(8): 700-14.
[ ] [PMID: 29229179]
Henke LE, Contreras JA, Green OL, Cai B, Kim H, Roach MC, et al. Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiotherapy (MRIgRT): A 4.5-Year Clinical Experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018; 30(11): 720-7.
[ ] [PMID: 30197095]
Kirby AM, Yarnold JR, Evans PM, et al. Tumor bed delineation for partial breast and breast boost radiotherapy planned in the prone position: What does MRI add to X-ray CT localization of titanium clips placed in the excision cavity wall? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74(4): 1276-82.
[ ] [PMID: 19464816]
Kirby AM, Evans PM, Helyer SJ, Donovan EM, Convery HM, Yarnold JR. A randomised trial of supine versus prone breast radiotherapy (SuPr study): comparing set-up errors and respiratory motion. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100(2): 221-6.
[ ] [PMID: 21159397]
Batumalai V, Liney G, Delaney GP, et al. Assessment of MRI image quality for various setup positions used in breast radiotherapy planning. Radiother Oncol 2016; 119(1): 57-60.
[ ] [PMID: 26970675]
Jolicoeur M, Racine ML, Trop I, et al. Localization of the surgical bed using supine magnetic resonance and computed tomography scan fusion for planification of breast interstitial brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100(3): 480-4.
[ ] [PMID: 21924509]
Saha A, Harowicz MR, Mazurowski MA. Breast cancer MRI radiomics: An overview of algorithmic features and impact of inter-reader variability in annotating tumors. Med Phys 2018; 45(7): 3076-85.
[ ] [PMID: 29663411]
Giezen M, Kouwenhoven E, Scholten AN, et al. MRI- versus CT based volume delineation of lumpectomy cavity in supine position in breast-conserving therapy: an exploratory study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82(4): 1332-40.
[ ] [PMID: 21708426]
Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, Pfeifer LM. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 1984; 11(4): 425-48.
[ ] [PMID: 6482839]
Ahn KH, Hargreaves BA, Alley MT, et al. MRI guidance for accelerated partial breast irradiation in prone position: Imaging protocol design and evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75(1): 285-93.
[ ] [PMID: 19632067]

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

Year: 2020
Page: [997 - 1003]
Pages: 7
DOI: 10.2174/1573405615666191008162447
Price: $65

Article Metrics

PDF: 19