0
Research Letters |

Prone vs Supine Positioning for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy FREE

Silvia C. Formenti, MD; J. Keith DeWyngaert, PhD; Gabor Jozsef, PhD; Judith D. Goldberg, ScD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Radiation Oncology (Drs Formenti, DeWyngaert, and Jozsef) (silvia.formenti@nyumc.org) and Environmental Medicine (Dr Goldberg), New York University School of Medicine, New York.


Letters Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Senior Editor.

More Author Information
JAMA. 2012;308(9):861-863. doi:10.1001/2012.jama.10759.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: Adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast contributes to improved outcomes in breast cancer patients after breast preservation surgery.1 However, whole breast radiotherapy is associated with damage to the heart and lung, increased cardiovascular mortality, and lung cancer development, with risks that remain 15 to 20 years after treatment.2 These consequences occur when breast cancer patients are treated supine. Preliminary data on prone positioning suggest that radiation exposure to the heart and lung can be reduced compared with supine positioning3,4 with similar efficacy.5 To test the hypothesis that prone positioning is superior to standard supine positioning, we compared the volume of heart and lung within the radiation field in a prospective study of patients who underwent simulation in both positions.

From November 15, 2005, to December 26, 2008, patients with stage 0-IIA breast cancer, segmental mastectomy, negative surgical margins, and 3 or fewer involved lymph nodes referred to New York University Radiation Oncology were eligible for the study. Each patient underwent 2 computed tomography (CT) simulation scans, first supine and next prone. The dose from the second CT was justified ethically because additional imaging enabled the treating physician to choose the position that best spared heart and lung. The treating physician contoured target and normal structures and placed the treatment fields. Comparable coverage of the breast regardless of position was ensured by placing the posterior edge of the field on a plane connecting the midline to the anterior extent of the latissimus dorsi muscle, visualized at CT (Figure). In-field heart and lung volumes were then measured by 2 physicists (J.K.D. and G.J.) as reliable surrogates for dose.4 Three breast volume groups were defined (<750 cm3, 750-1500 cm3, and >1500 cm3).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure. Example of a Patient With Better Exclusion of the Heart and Lung When Prone
Graphic Jump Location

Placing the posterior edge of the fields on a plane connecting the midline to the anterior extent of the latissimus dorsi muscle ensures comparable breast coverage.

Two hundred patients per stratum (left and right breast cancer) were enrolled to detect differences smaller than ±0.30 SD for each volume parameter between the supine and prone positions, using paired t tests with a 2-sided α of .05 and power of 80%. Differences in in-field lung and heart volumes (and 95% confidence intervals) between the supine and prone positions for patients with left breast cancer and in lung volumes for patients with right breast cancer were estimated. Data analysis was performed using SAS software version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc).

All patients provided written informed consent. The New York University institutional review board approved the study.

Four hundred consecutive patients were prospectively accrued, approximately 60% of those eligible. Median age was 56.3 years (range, 30.7-94.3 years). Ethnicity was 322 (80.5%) white, 22 (5.5%) black, 21 (5.2%) Hispanic, 28 (7%) Asian, and 7 (1.7%) of other ethnicity. The primary insurance carrier was private in 310 (77%) patients, Medicare in 76 (19%), and Medicaid in 14 (4%). Eighty-six (21.5%) patients had ductal carcinoma in situ. Among the 314 (78.5%) patients with invasive breast cancer, 47 (14.96%) had involved sentinel or axillary lymph nodes.

In all patients, the prone position was associated with reduced in-field lung volumes compared with supine (Table) (mean difference: 104.6 cm3 [95% CI, 94.26-114.95 cm3], an 86.2% reduction for right breast cancer; 89.85 cm3 [95% CI, 80.16-99.55 cm3], a 91.1% reduction for left breast cancer). In patients with left breast cancer, the prone position was associated with a reduction of in-field heart volumes compared with supine (mean difference: 7.5 cm3 [95% CI, 5.16-9.85 cm3], an 85.7% reduction). However, in 15% of patients with left breast cancer, the supine position was associated with less in-field heart volume compared with prone (mean difference: 6.15 cm3; 95% CI, 2.97-9.33 cm3). These reductions were statistically significant regardless of breast volume (with the exception of heart in women with breast size <750 cm3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Differences in Volumes of Heart and Lung Between Supine and Prone Positions by Breast Volume and Right vs Left Breast Cancer

Prone positioning was associated with a reduction in the amount of irradiated lung in all patients and in the amount of heart volume irradiated in 85% of patients with left breast cancer.

The study is limited to a single institution. A multi-institutional prospective trial with outcome measures is warranted to confirm these findings. If prone positioning better protects normal tissue adjacent to the breast, the risks of long-term deleterious effects of radiotherapy may be reduced.

Author Contributions: Dr Formenti had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Formenti, DeWyngaert, Goldberg.

Acquisition of data: Formenti, DeWyngaert, Jozsef.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Formenti, DeWyngaert, Goldberg.

Drafting of the manuscript: Formenti, DeWyngaert, Goldberg.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Formenti, Jozsef, Goldberg.

Statistical analysis: Jozsef, Goldberg.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Formenti, DeWyngaert.

Study supervision: Formenti, Goldberg.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Formenti reported institutional receipt of payment from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, for a presentation at a conference; and institutional receipt of payment for a continuing medical education course offered at New York University. Dr Goldberg reported institutional receipt of a cancer center support grant from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Drs DeWyngaert and Jozsef did not report any disclosures.

Funding/Support: Federal IDEA grant DAMD17-01-1-0345 from the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program awarded to Dr Formenti enabled the initial feasibility study on prone breast radiotherapy that permitted the current trial.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding agency of the feasibility study on prone breast radiotherapy that permitted the current trial had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Darby S, McGale P, Correa C,  et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG).  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):1707-1716
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Darby SC, McGale P, Taylor CW, Peto R. Long-term mortality from heart disease and lung cancer after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: prospective cohort study of about 300,000 women in US SEER cancer registries.  Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(8):557-565
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Formenti SC, Gidea-Addeo D, Goldberg JD,  et al.  Phase I-II trial of prone accelerated intensity modulated radiation therapy to the breast to optimally spare normal tissue.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(16):2236-2242
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lymberis SC, Dewyngaert JK, Parhar P,  et al.  Prospective assessment of optimal individual position (prone versus supine) for breast radiotherapy: volumetric and dosimetric correlations in 100 patients [published online April 9, 2012].  Int J Radiation Oncol Biol PhysicsLink to Article
PubMed
Stegman LD, Beal KP, Hunt MA, Fornier MN, McCormick B. Long-term clinical outcomes of whole-breast irradiation delivered in the prone position.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(1):73-81
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure. Example of a Patient With Better Exclusion of the Heart and Lung When Prone
Graphic Jump Location

Placing the posterior edge of the fields on a plane connecting the midline to the anterior extent of the latissimus dorsi muscle ensures comparable breast coverage.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Differences in Volumes of Heart and Lung Between Supine and Prone Positions by Breast Volume and Right vs Left Breast Cancer

References

Darby S, McGale P, Correa C,  et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG).  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):1707-1716
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Darby SC, McGale P, Taylor CW, Peto R. Long-term mortality from heart disease and lung cancer after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: prospective cohort study of about 300,000 women in US SEER cancer registries.  Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(8):557-565
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Formenti SC, Gidea-Addeo D, Goldberg JD,  et al.  Phase I-II trial of prone accelerated intensity modulated radiation therapy to the breast to optimally spare normal tissue.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(16):2236-2242
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lymberis SC, Dewyngaert JK, Parhar P,  et al.  Prospective assessment of optimal individual position (prone versus supine) for breast radiotherapy: volumetric and dosimetric correlations in 100 patients [published online April 9, 2012].  Int J Radiation Oncol Biol PhysicsLink to Article
PubMed
Stegman LD, Beal KP, Hunt MA, Fornier MN, McCormick B. Long-term clinical outcomes of whole-breast irradiation delivered in the prone position.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(1):73-81
PubMed   |  Link to Article
January 9, 2013
David L. Sherr, MD
JAMA. 2013;309(2):137. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.56914.
January 9, 2013
Silvia C. Formenti, MD; J. Keith DeWyngaert, PhD
JAMA. 2013;309(2):137. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.56923.
CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Evidence Summary and Review 3