pISSN 1738-6756   eISSN 2092-9900
Open Access, Peer-reviewed
    J Breast Cancer. 2022 Oct;25(5):349-365. English.
    Published online Aug 24, 2022.
    https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2022.25.e37
    © 2022 Korean Breast Cancer Society
    Review

    Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in the Treatment of Breast Cancer: An Updated Review

    Jee Suk Chang,1 Ji Hyun Chang,2 Nalee Kim,3 Yong Bae Kim,1 Kyung Hwan Shin,2 and Kyubo Kim4
      • 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    • Correspondence to Kyubo Kim. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, 1071 Anyangcheon-ro, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul 07985, Korea. Email: kyubokim.ro@gmail.com
    Received March 12, 2022; Revised July 16, 2022; Accepted July 24, 2022.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Radiation therapy (RT) plays a critical role in breast cancer treatment. In the modern technological era, innovations and progress in breast RT and delivery techniques have greatly improved the clinical outcomes. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is a modern RT technology that permits the modulation of RT beams, ensuring a more uniform dose distribution through the target tissue and better avoidance of underlying critical structures. Recently, several studies have been published on breast IMRT. However, the interpretation of these results can be challenging because of the wide diversity of patients and treatment. The purpose of this study was to review these studies, focusing on the impact of IMRT on reducing toxicity and increasing convenience, as well as addressing concerns regarding breast IMRT.

    Keywords
    Breast Neoplasms; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated

    INTRODUCTION

    In the treatment of breast cancer, randomized trials have demonstrated a significant benefit in ipsilateral breast tumor control following whole breast radiation therapy (RT), which has led to an increase in survival rates when compared with surgery alone [1]. Studies have further assessed the impact of comprehensive regional nodal RT with whole breast or chest wall RT in women with either node-positive disease or high-risk node-negative disease, and have indicated a significant benefit in regional control and survival [2, 3]. The benefits of RT in breast cancer treatment are well established; however, there is a struggle for previous trials to keep up with the rapid development of technology for imaging and treatment delivery. For instance, in the early days of breast RT, technology specific to 3-dimensional (3D) imaging of the body did not exist. Instead, RT was delivered using 2D imaging produced by kilovoltage radiation and surface anatomy. This allowed the bony anatomy to be rendered but failed to show the organs at risk (OARs) as well as targets in the soft tissue. Therefore, it was only possible to approximate the tumor bed, internal mammary lymph nodes (IMNs), and axillary lymph nodes. During this time, it was not possible to ensure target coverage or predict the volume of critical organs exposed to harmful radiation, because the path of the radiation beam was only verified through kilovoltage imaging. In the past century, RT has advanced through expanded knowledge of oncological disease processes, applied physics, and technological developments. Although computed tomography (CT) imaging was first developed in 1972, it was not available to radiation oncology departments for treatment planning until the 1990s [4]. Currently, CT treatment planning is the standard of care and is of critical importance for calculating 3D dose distribution and achieving a balance between tumor control and critical OARs protection [5, 6].

    3D CONFORMAL RADIATION THERAPY IN BREAST CANCER

    In 3D-conformal radiation therapy (CRT), although it might be difficult to distinguish between historical 2D plans and modern 3D plans, 3D plans differ by performing optimizations based on the dose to the target areas and OARs [7]. In a common beam path, parallel opposed photon tangent fields are used to treat the chest wall, breast, IMNs, and/or low axilla [8]. If the high axilla and supraclavicular nodes were irradiated, the anterior photon field that treated these regions was matched to the parallel opposed photon tangents. If the IMNs were irradiated, physicians modulated the field size of the photon tangents or added high-energy electrons in lieu of photons to include the IMNs, thus resulting in substantial exposure of the lungs and heart. Materials that absorb radiation can be placed in the path of the beam, and smaller fields can be inserted within a larger field to adjust the dose homogeneity, particularly in the tangent fields.

    IMRT IN BREAST CANCER

    Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was introduced as an advanced RT technique, and uses dynamic multileaf collimators [9]. IMRT differs from conventional treatment modalities—2D or 3D-CRT—because of its ability to modulate the intensity of radiation directed at specific regions. IMRT planning should be developed according to 3D target volumes that have been contoured on CT images, rather than on surface anatomy, skin incisions, and/or 2D images of underlying bony anatomy and critical OARs (e.g., the heart and lungs) [10]. The process of contouring anatomically individualized targets with standardized OARs requires a high level of expertise and a large amount of time [11]. Additionally, physicians must work with physicists and dosimetrists to determine the optimal parameters to adequately cover the target areas and minimize the radiation dose to OARs. Given that the dose reduction to normal tissues achieved by advanced techniques can be translated into reduced toxicity, dose constraints for potential OARs, which are continually changing because of the evolving knowledge on the dose–volume parameters attributed to known toxicities [12, 13, 14], can be used to limit the toxicity risk alongside modern delivery techniques.

    Breast IMRT can be classified into two types according to the optimization algorithms for segment weight definition [15]: 1) forward IMRT, which is a simplified version of IMRT wherein only a few segments are manually optimized and is also known as the “field-in-field (FIF)” technique, and 2) inverse IMRT, which is more complex and uses a cost-function reduction algorithm (a process of tradeoffs between target coverage and normal organ sparing) that allows for a more homogeneous dose distribution while sparing the normal tissue from excess radiation dose exposure. However, by considering inverse treatment planning as an essential component of IMRT, forward IMRT or FIF is often placed in the same classification as traditional “forward” planned 3D-CRT in modern perspectives [16].

    When using 3D-CRT, the physician and dosimetrist team select the beam angles and evaluate the dose distribution to optimize the target coverage and predefined OAR constraints. However, using IMRT, 1) the target coverage and OAR constraint goals are entered into the treatment planning system and 2) the number of beams and their angles are selected. The system then generates a plan to conform the radiation dose to the target and avoid the exposure of healthy tissue by varying the beam intensities and shapes throughout the treatment. A complete planning optimization procedure involves repeated optimization iterations under appropriate constraints (Figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Workflow diagram of the 3D-CRT and IMRT procedures for breast cancer treatment.
    3D = 3-dimensional; CRT = conformal radiation therapy; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiotherapy; CBCT = cone-beam computed tomography; QA = quality assurance; DQA = delivery quality assurance.

    Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a form of IMRT that achieves high-dose conformity, but in a shorter time period [17]. Unlike standard IMRT, which relies on multiple independent beam angles, VMAT continuously administers radiation in an arc, while the gantry rotates. Several parameters can be modulated during this delivery (e.g., the field shape and orientation, dose rate, and rate of gantry rotation). Numerous planning studies have demonstrated improved dose distribution and better conformity and homogeneity index in IMRT or VMAT when compared with 3D-CRT (Figure 2) [18, 19].

    Figure 2
    Schematic illustration of the dose distribution of 3D-CRT and VMAT on axial CT images at the level of breast (upper) and lower neck (lower).
    3D = 3-dimensional; CRT = conformal radiation therapy; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy; CT = computed tomography; WBI, whole breast irradiation; SCL, supraclavicular; RT, radiotherapy.

    IMRT was first performed in Korea in 2001. A decade later, in 2011, IMRT treatment for certain sites of cancer, including the head and neck, brain, prostate, spine, and re-irradiation cases, was partially covered by national health insurance. Since July 2015, this coverage has been extended to include nearly all cancer types. A study investigating recent trends in IMRT reported an 18-fold increase in the use of IMRT for breast cancer in Korea, from 1,921 patients in 2011 to 34,759 in 2018 [20].

    Owing to improvements in radiation techniques over the past decade, it is now possible for breast RT to be delivered with adequate dose coverage, while maintaining reduced toxicity. Many studies have recently been published on breast RT using IMRT; however, interpretation of these results can be difficult because of the wide diversity of patients and treatments involved. This article summarizes the studies of breast IMRT in narrative review form with clinically relevant outcomes in either a randomized (Table 1) [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] or non-randomized design (Table 2) [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34].

    Table 1
    Summary of the randomized controlled trials on the role of IMRT for adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer

    Table 2
    Summary of the non-randomized studies on the role of IMRT for adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer

    OLD FORWARD-IMRT TRIALS IN THE EARLY 2000S

    In breast cancer treatment, the first randomized trial that investigated the utility of an advanced technique was the Royal Marsden/UK breast study published in 2007 [21]. A total of 306 patients were randomized to receive either a 2D wedge plan (2D-RT) or the FIF technique using step-and-shoot multileaf collimators or a physical 3D compensator (although the authors used the term “IMRT arm,” we used the term “FIF” to distinguish forward IMRT from the modern concept of IMRT in this article). According to the analysis of the 5-year photographs, changes in appearance were 1.7-times higher in the 2D-RT arm than in the FIF arm. The incidence of palpable induration was lower in the FIF group.

    The second randomized trial was a Canadian/Sunnybrook breast study first published in 2008 [22]. A total of 331 patients were randomized to receive either 2D wedge-based RT or FIF. This study found that the rate of moist desquamation, which is significantly associated with pain and reduced health-related quality of life, was reduced from 47.8% with standard wedge RT to 31.2% with FIF (p = 0.002).

    The third randomized trial was a 2-year-long Cambridge study published in 2013 [23]. A total of 1,145 patients were randomized to receive either tangential techniques or FIF. Unlike the 2 aforementioned trials, which used a 2 Gy daily fraction (50 Gy), this trial used moderate hypofractionation (40 Gy in 15 fractions with a 2.67 Gy daily fraction). The development of telangiectasia was 1.7 times more common in the control group. In a subgroup analysis of patients with good surgical cosmesis, patients with FIF were less likely to experience moderate or poor cosmesis than those in the control group. Given that hypofractionated (HF)-whole breast irradiation (WBI) is the preferred dose-fractionation scheme for the majority of early breast cancer patients [35], unplanned dose inhomogeneities (so called “hotspots”) in breast tissue could be penalized more severely in a larger fraction size. Therefore, dose–volume restrictions and dose conformity within the breast may be more important with HF-WBI.

    In these earlier studies, the forward IMRT, “simple” IMRT, or FIF technique was used, which aimed to reduce a higher-dose area than the prescription dose within the breast, but was unable to substantially reduce doses to the OARs, such as the lung and heart. The avoidance of a high-dose area within the breast contributed to a reduction in the incidence of moist desquamation, as demonstrated in a randomized trial conducted by Pignol et al. [22]. Long-term follow-up data from this trial showed that late subcutaneous fibrosis and telangiectasia were correlated with moist desquamation, which was reduced by FIF [36]. In addition, the Cambridge breast trial demonstrated that FIF improved overall cosmesis and reduced skin telangiectasia [23].

    INVERSE IMRT STUDIES IN THE MODERN ERA

    Whole breast irradiation using IMRT

    A recent trial conducted in Korea suggested that inverse-planned IMRT is likely to further reduce acute toxicity when compared with 3D-CRT [24]. In the Korean Radiation Oncology Group (KROG) 15-03 trial, 693 women with pT1-2N0M0 early breast cancer were randomly assigned to undergo either IMRT or 3D-CRT. The conformity index was significantly higher in the IMRT arm than in the 3D-CRT arm (p < 0.001), and the incidence of grade 2 or higher dermatitis was significantly lower in the IMRT arm than in the 3D-CRT arm (27.8% vs. 37%, p = 0.009). Furthermore, Jagsi et al. [34] reported the results of a comparative effectiveness analysis of 3D-CRT versus IMRT in a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with breast cancer receiving WBI without nodal irradiation. They separately analyzed acute toxicity in patients treated with conventionally fractionated (CF) or HF-WBI. Multivariate analysis showed that the odds ratio (OR) for acute toxicity after inverse-planned IMRT versus 3D-CRT was 0.64 with CF-WBI and 0.41 with HF-WBI.

    Kim et al. reported a large-volume single-center experience of breast RT using various combinations of fractionation and techniques in 4,209 women [33]. They observed that grade 2+ acute/subacute toxicities were the highest in the 3D-CRT group (15.0%, 2.6%, and 1.6% in CF-3D, HF-3D, and HF-VMAT, respectively; p < 0.001), and the use of HF-VMAT significantly reduced grade 2+ acute/subacute toxicities when compared to CF-3D (OR, 0.11) and HF-3D (OR, 0.45).

    Partial breast irradiation using IMRT

    Breast conservation with WBI in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer has been a pivotal achievement in modern cancer history. Following this achievement, extensive clinical research has been conducted, focusing on reducing the burden of care imposed by 5–7 weeks of daily radiation delivery after lumpectomy. Partial breast irradiation, which targets the breast tissue around the surgical cavity, was one of the earliest alternatives studied [37]. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using IMRT is well established as one of the effective approaches for RT in early-stage breast cancer patients (Figure 3) [38].

    Figure 3
    Schematic illustration of the dose distribution of 3D-CRT and VMAT-based PBI.
    3D = 3-dimensional; CRT = conformal radiation therapy; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy; PBI = partial breast irradiations.

    With increasing interest in the de-escalation of breast RT, APBI is gradually being employed among select low-risk patients. The criteria for patient selection have been suggested by several oncology societies, including the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie, European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO), and American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), although minor differences are observed among these standards [39, 40]. There are also various APBI techniques, including external beam RT, applicator brachytherapy, interstitial brachytherapy, and intraoperative RT [41]. According to the ABS, the strongest evidence for APBI supports interstitial brachytherapy and IMRT [42]. While interstitial brachytherapy-based APBI requires specific expertise, is more demanding, and is mainly performed at specialized centers, external beam-based APBI can be applied in all radiation oncology departments. Unlike intraoperative RT, brachytherapy and external beam-based APBI may be delivered following recovery from surgery and after receiving the final pathological results.

    It is important to understand that adverse events and cosmetic outcomes are highly influenced by the irradiated volume, ratio with non-target ipsilateral breast volume, RT technique, and adopted schedule [43]. As the irradiated volume (V50%, the non-target ipsilateral breast volume of the dose receiving 50% of the prescription dose) increases, adverse events and cosmetic outcomes worsen [44]. In a previous prospective KROG 08-04 trial evaluating 3D-CRT-based APBI in Korean breast cancer patients, the median V50% of the ipsilateral breast was 42%, and the dose constraint of V50% < 50% was not achieved in 10% of patients [45]. The authors concluded that APBI using 3D-CRT is not feasible in Korean women.

    APBI using IMRT was compared with WBI in a phase 3 randomized trial in Italy [28]. A total of 520 patients were randomized to receive APBI-IMRT (30 Gy in 5 fractions, every other day for 2 weeks) and WBI (50 Gy in 25 fractions), followed by a sequential boost. The 10-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence rate did not differ between the two arms. The mean V50% of the uninvolved breast volume was 32% in the APBI-IMRT arm, and less acute and late toxicities, as well as improved cosmetic outcomes, were observed in the APBI-IMRT arm.

    In a retrospective study by Lee et al. [46], similar feasibility was achieved by IMRT in 104 Korean women. The median ipsilateral breast V50% was 35.8%, despite the smaller breast volumes. The change in skin thickness appeared to be limited to the tumor bed after APBI-IMRT, in contrast to the diffuse skin thickening observed after HF-WBI. Another Korean study reported the initial experience of APBI-IMRT in 37 patients using magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive RT, which enables the adaptation of seroma changes during the course of RT [47].

    Concomitant boost technique using IMRT

    Boost irradiation, which refers to an extra dose of radiation that surrounds the tumor bed, is intended to decrease the local recurrence rates. Two randomized trials that investigated the impact of tumor bed boost after breast conserving surgery implied that boost results in a lower rate of local recurrences and, subsequently, a lower rate of mastectomies [48, 49]. If a boost is administered, 10–16 Gy in 2 Gy fraction over 1–2 weeks is typically delivered after the completion of WBI. An additional advantage of the IMRT technique is its ability to provide differential dose distributions, which allows for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) delivery (Figure 4). SIB delivers an additional dose to the high-risk area while simultaneously delivering the conventional dose to the standard or low-risk area at the same time [50]. Using the IMRT technique, a tumor bed boost can be delivered simultaneously with WBI, which can reduce patient visits. There are a number of prospective trials evaluating tumor bed boost delivered as SIB using IMRT technique (IMRT-SIB) in breast cancer.

    Figure 4
    Schematic illustration of breast sequential and SIB either in conventional fractionation or moderate hypofractionation schedules.
    3D = 3-dimensional; CRT = conformal radiation therapy; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy; SIB = simultaneous integrated boost.

    The IMRT-MC2 trial is a phase 3, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing IMRT-SIB (whole breast 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, SIB 64.4 Gy in 28 fractions) with 3D-CRT followed by sequential boost (whole breast 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, boost 16 Gy in 8 fractions) [25]. A total of 502 patients were enrolled, and there were no significant differences in cosmesis, local control, or overall survival between the two treatment schedules at a median follow-up of 5.1 years. The overall treatment times were 1 to 1.6 weeks shorter in the IMRT-SIB arm than in the 3D-CRT arm, which most likely improves patient convenience. Breast pain and arm symptoms were more favorable in the IMRT-SIB arm than in the 3D-CRT arm. KROG 15-03 trial compared IMRT-SIB (whole breast 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, SIB 57.4 Gy in 28 fractions) versus 3D-CRT followed by sequential boost (whole breast 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, boost 9 Gy in 5 fractions) [24]. IMRT with the SIB method not only reduced grade 2+ radiation dermatitis but also reduced treatment times (from 33 fractions to 28 fractions), with a similar loco-regional failure-free survival approaching 99%.

    In 2017, international guidelines adopted HF-WBI as the preferred dose fractionation scheme for a majority of patients with early breast cancer [35]. The IMPORT-HIGH trial is a phase 3 randomized trial to test dose-escalated SIB compared with sequential boost using moderately HF-WBI in high-risk early breast cancer. The dose-fractionation schedule of the control arm was 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, followed by a sequential boost (16 Gy in 8 fractions) [51]. The dose levels of the experimental arms were as follows:36 Gy/15fx to the low-risk breast, 40 Gy/15fx to the index quadrant, and 48 Gy/15fx to the tumor bed in arm 1; the same doses to the low-risk breast and index quadrant as in arm 1, but dose escalated to the tumor bed (53 Gy/15fx) in arm 2. A total of 2,617 patients were accrued, and the 5-year moderate/marked adverse events were broadly similar between each test group and control group, but with a higher risk of breast induration and distortion in the 53 Gy/15fx arm [26]. This study concluded that IMRT with SIB (48 Gy/15fx) is a safe treatment with fewer patient visits.

    Currently, 2 ongoing randomized trials (HYPOSIB and RTOG 1005) are evaluating SIB versus sequential boost in women receiving HF-WBI. In 2020, the preliminary safety data of the HYPOSIB randomized phase 3 trial, which recruited 2,324 patients from 88 centers in Germany and Austria, was presented [27]. An SIB of 48 Gy in 15 fractions was administered using IMRT in the IMRT-SIB arm, and acute skin reactions were less pronounced and completed before the peak skin reaction occurred in the IMRT-SIB arm than in the control arm.

    Regional nodal irradiation using IMRT

    A study published in 2013 by Darby et al. showed a linear no-threshold relationship between mean heart dose (MHD) and the incidence of heart disease after breast RT, finding a 7.4% relative risk of ischemic heart disease for every 1-Gy increment in MHD [52]. Chung et al. [53] confirmed these findings in a Korean population, independently corroborating this linear no-threshold model for MHD, regardless of the risk factors for coronary events. Left-sided breast cancer and the inclusion of IMNs in the treatment volume are well-known risk factors for increased MHD in RT planning. Therefore, breast RT planning should focus on achieving optimal coverage of targets and minimizing radiation to OARs, considering 1) the expected long-term survival in early breast cancer and 2) the impact of regional node irradiation (especially IMN and supraclavicular) on survival among patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative breast cancer, as demonstrated in the MA.20 and EORTC 22922 trials [54].

    IMRT, especially VMAT, has been suggested as a heart-sparing technique (Figure 5) [55]. However, MHD, a parameter associated with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease, is often higher with IMRT than 3D-CRT if cardiac sparing is not prioritized in the IMRT planning process. A prospective study conducted by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reports that an MHD of 13.2 Gy (range, 8.6–20 Gy) was achieved among left-sided breast cancer patients receiving multibeam IMRT [56]. The cardiac-sparing capability of IMRT can be synergized with a controlled breathing technique, such as deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) [19, 57]. A small, randomized trial tested the benefit of IMRT with DIBH compared to 3D-CRT in left-sided, node-positive patients receiving nodal irradiation including IMNs [57]. Mean doses to the heart, left ventricle, and left anterior descending coronary artery were significantly lower, and the left ventricular ejection fraction at 1-year was higher in the IMRT-DIBH group, although perfusion defects on single-photon emission computed tomography did not differ between the 2 groups. Another dosimetric study demonstrated that MHD could be reduced by 50% with the use of DIBH or CPAP, and the use of VMAT could further lower MHD by approximately 40% [19].

    Figure 5
    Schematic illustration of the dose distribution of 3D-CRT and VMAT in RNI with internal mammary nodal irradiation.
    3D = 3-dimensional; CRT = conformal radiation therapy; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy; RNI = regional nodal irradiation.

    Based on the same principle, VMAT has the potential to reduce radiation exposure to the lungs if lung sparing is prioritized in the RT planning process. Kim et al. [33] analyzed 5,749 patients treated with 3D-CRT or VMAT at a single institution. Late toxicities, including radiation pneumonitis, lymphedema, hypothyroidism, cardiotoxicity, and secondary contralateral breast cancer, were also evaluated. There was no significant difference in any late toxicity except radiation pneumonitis, which favors VMAT over 3D-CRT. As emerging late toxicities are highlighted, delineation and constraints to more OARs, such as the thyroid [12], esophagus [12], and axillary-lateral thoracic juncture [14], would improve the quality of IMRT in breast RT. Because an unintended increased radiation dose to the reconstructed breast is associated with an increased risk of reconstruction complications, including capsular contracture, VMAT may mitigate radiation-related complications by improving dose homogeneity in the reconstructed breast (Figure 6) [58, 59]. Recent target volume guidelines can further reduce the dose to the heart while maintaining target volume coverage in breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement [60].

    Figure 6
    Schematic illustration of the dose distribution of 3D-CRT and VMAT in PMRT after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction.
    3D = 3-dimensional; CRT = conformal radiation therapy; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy; PMRT = post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

    ISSUES RELATED TO IMRT IN BREAST CANCER

    There are concerns regarding secondary malignancies as a late toxicity of RT. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT for breast cancer increases the low-dose area outside the target volume, which potentially increases the risk of secondary malignancy, including contralateral breast cancer. A recent dosimetric study by Ko et al. [19] showed that although VMAT increased the radiation dose to the contralateral breast relative to 3D-CRT, the difference in the mean dose between these techniques was approximately 1 Gy. Another dosimetric study by Ranger et al. showed that there is no significant difference in mean contralateral breast dose between VMAT and 3D-CRT (1.7 Gy vs. 1.2 Gy, respectively) [55]. In real-world data using the National Cancer Database, the second cancer diagnosis was similar after 3D-CRT and IMRT at a median follow-up of 5.1 years after the completion of RT [61]. There was no difference in second cancer risk between 3D-CRT and IMRT when the analysis was confined to primary breast cancer alone. A recent study that evaluated the long-term risk of secondary malignancy with > 10 years of follow-up in childhood cancer patients who were treated with IMRT showed that many secondary malignancies develop in the high-dose region after IMRT [62].

    As IMRT becomes more sophisticated, its implementation introduces several issues related to quality control. Considering that errors in RT treatment may have dire consequences for patients, quality management is an integral component of preventing deviations from the intended track. Quality control includes all facility activities during simulation, contouring, planning, and treatment. According to TG-100 by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, a program needs to ensure that the following components are in place [63]: 1) adequate resources—physicians, dosimetrists, medical physics, therapists, equipment, and administrative support—to perform the breast IMRT procedure; 2) quality training for the staff and established standardized procedures (e.g., contouring of clinical target volume and OARs and planning considerations); 3) a program focused on maintaining equipment and software; and 4) clear and effective lines of communication. Above all, inter-physician variations in contouring and planning present the greatest challenges for standardization and increased quality control. Currently, the KROG 21-01 study is underway to improve the quality of breast IMRT in Korea [64].

    CONCLUSION

    With the modernization of RT, 3D treatment planning has been incorporated into practice, along with the use of CT simulation. Further innovations in technology include the improvement of standard linear accelerators that allow for the avoidance of healthy tissue using multileaf collimators, ability to obtain 3D images in real-time using cone beam CT, improvements in cardiac sparing techniques (e.g., respiratory motion management including DIBH), and advances in treatment planning and delivery (e.g., IMRT). Altogether, these innovations have enabled great progress in relation to dose fractionation and targets in breast RT. In the years to come, breast RT is expected to evolve further, allowing for even shorter regimens, reduced toxicities and patient visits, incorporation of tumor genetics or biomarkers, new opportunities for patients with metastatic breast cancer, and further increases in the therapeutic ratio of techniques.

    Notes

    Funding:This study was supported by a faculty research grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine (6-2021-0233) and a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Republic of Korea (MSIT) (No. 2019R1C1C1009359).

    Conflict of Interest:The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Author Contributions:

    • Conceptualization: Chang JS, Kim K.

    • Data curation: Chang JS, Kim K.

    • Funding acquisition: Chang JS.

    • Investigation: Chang JS, Chang JH, Kim N, Kim K.

    • Methodology: Chang JS.

    • Project administration: Kim K.

    • Supervision: Kim YB, Shin KH.

    • Visualization: Chang JS.

    • Writing - original draft: Chang JS, Chang JH, Kim N, Kim YB, Shin KH, Kim K.

    • Writing - review & editing: Chang JS, Chang JH, Kim N, Kim YB, Shin KH, Kim K.

    References

      1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, Arriagada R, 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;378:1707–1716.
      1. EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group). McGale P, Taylor C, Correa C, Cutter D, Duane F, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials. Lancet 2014;383:2127–2135.
      1. Dodwell D, Taylor C, McGale P, Coles C, Duane F, Gray R, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials. Cancer Res 2019;79:GS4-02
      1. Ahmad SS, Duke S, Jena R, Williams MV, Burnet NG. Advances in radiotherapy. BMJ 2012;345:e7765
      1. Offersen BV, Boersma LJ, Kirkove C, Hol S, Aznar MC, Biete Sola A, et al. ESTRO consensus guideline on target volume delineation for elective radiation therapy of early stage breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2015;114:3–10.
      1. Bekelman JE, Lu H, Pugh S, Baker K, Berg CD, Berrington de González A, et al. Pragmatic randomised clinical trial of proton versus photon therapy for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: the Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Consortium trial protocol. BMJ Open 2019;9:e025556
      1. Liesenfeld SM, Wendt TG. Clinical implications of 3D-conformal radiotherapy. Onkologie 2000;23:590–592.
      1. Lichter AS, Fraass BA, Yanke B. Treatment techniques in the conservative management of breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 1992;2:94–106.
      1. Bortfeld T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:R363–R379.
      1. Webb S. The physical basis of IMRT and inverse planning. Br J Radiol 2003;76:678–689.
      1. Andrianarison VA, Laouiti M, Fargier-Bochaton O, Dipasquale G, Wang X, Nguyen NP, et al. Contouring workload in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy. Cancer Radiother 2018;22:747–753.
      1. Choi SH, Chang JS, Byun HK, Son NH, Hong CS, Hong N, et al. Risk of hypothyroidism in women after radiation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;110:462–472.
      1. Lee BM, Chang JS, Kim SY, Keum KC, Suh CO, Kim YB. Hypofractionated radiotherapy dose scheme and application of new techniques are associated to a lower incidence of radiation pneumonitis in breast cancer patients. Front Oncol 2020;10:124.
      1. Gross JP, Lynch CM, Flores AM, Jordan SW, Helenowski IB, Gopalakrishnan M, et al. Determining the organ at risk for lymphedema after regional nodal irradiation in breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;105:649–658.
      1. Mihai A, Rakovitch E, Sixel K, Woo T, Cardoso M, Bell C, et al. Inverse vs. forward breast IMRT planning. Med Dosim 2005;30:149–154.
      1. Smith GL, Smith BD. Sea change: a decade of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for treatment of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020;112:221–223.
      1. Elith C, Dempsey SE, Findlay N, Warren-Forward HM. An introduction to the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques, tomotherapy, and VMAT. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2011;42:37–43.
      1. Haciislamoglu E, Colak F, Canyilmaz E, Dirican B, Gurdalli S, Yilmaz AH, et al. Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole-breast irradiation with 3DCRT, forward-planned IMRT, inverse-planned IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and volumetric arc therapy. Phys Med 2015;31:360–367.
      1. Ko H, Chang JS, Moon JY, Lee WH, Shah C, Shim JS, et al. Dosimetric comparison of radiation techniques for comprehensive regional nodal radiation therapy for left-sided breast cancer: a treatment planning study. Front Oncol 2021;11:645328
      1. Huh SJ, Park W, Choi DH. Recent trends in intensity-modulated radiation therapy use in Korea. Radiat Oncol J 2019;37:249–253.
      1. Donovan E, Bleakley N, Denholm E, Evans P, Gothard L, Hanson J, et al. Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007;82:254–264.
      1. Pignol JP, Olivotto I, Rakovitch E, Gardner S, Sixel K, Beckham W, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2085–2092.
      1. Mukesh MB, Barnett GC, Wilkinson JS, Moody AM, Wilson C, Dorling L, et al. Randomized controlled trial of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year results confirm superior overall cosmesis. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:4488–4495.
      1. Choi KH, Ahn SJ, Jeong JU, Yu M, Kim JH, Jeong BK, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in early breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial of KROG 15-03. Radiother Oncol 2021;154:179–186.
      1. Hörner-Rieber J, Forster T, Hommertgen A, Haefner MF, Arians N, König L, et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with simultaneously integrated boost shortens treatment time and is noninferior to conventional radiation therapy followed by sequential boost in adjuvant breast cancer treatment: results of a large randomized phase III trial (IMRT-MC2 Trial). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;109:1311–1324.
      1. Coles C, Haviland JS, Kirby AM, Bhattacharya I, Brunt AM, Chan C, et al. OC-0291 IMPORT HIGH trial: dose escalated simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2021;161:S197–S199.
      1. Dunst J, Krug D, Schreiber A, Boicev AD, Zimmer J, Laubach R, et al. Patient reported experience with treatment modalities and safety of adjuvant breast radiotherapy - first results of the randomized HYPOSIB – study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020;108:S13.
      1. Meattini I, Marrazzo L, Saieva C, Desideri I, Scotti V, Simontacchi G, et al. Accelerated partial-breast irradiation compared with whole-breast irradiation for early breast cancer: long-term results of the randomized phase III APBI-IMRT-Florence trial. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:4175–4183.
      1. McDonald MW, Godette KD, Butker EK, Davis LW, Johnstone PA. Long-term outcomes of IMRT for breast cancer: a single-institution cohort analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:1031–1040.
      1. Lee HH, Hou MF, Chuang HY, Huang MY, Tsuei LP, Chen FM, et al. Intensity modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost vs. conventional radiotherapy with sequential boost for breast cancer - a preliminary result. Breast 2015;24:656–660.
      1. Yang JF, Lee MS, Lin CS, Chao HL, Chen CM, Lo CH, et al. Long-term breast cancer patient outcomes after adjuvant radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy or conventional tangential radiotherapy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3113
      1. Chen CH, Hsieh CC, Chang CS, Chen MF. A retrospective analysis of dose distribution and toxicity in patients with left breast cancer treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy: comparison with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Cancer Manag Res 2020;12:9173–9182.
      1. Kim N, Chang JS, Shah C, Shin H, Keum KC, Suh CO, et al. Hypofractionated volumetric-modulated arc therapy for breast cancer: a propensity-score-weighted comparison of radiation-related toxicity. Int J Cancer 2021;149:149–157.
      1. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Moran JM, Matuszak MM, Marsh R, Grubb M, et al. Comparative effectiveness analysis of 3D-conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022;112:643–653.
      1. Smith BD, Bellon JR, Blitzblau R, Freedman G, Haffty B, Hahn C, et al. Radiation therapy for the whole breast: executive summary of an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018;8:145–152.
      1. Pignol JP, Truong P, Rakovitch E, Sattler MG, Whelan TJ, Olivotto IA. Ten years results of the Canadian breast intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) randomized controlled trial. Radiother Oncol 2016;121:414–419.
      1. Offersen BV, Overgaard M, Kroman N, Overgaard J. Accelerated partial breast irradiation as part of breast conserving therapy of early breast carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2009;90:1–13.
      1. Shah C, Keisch M, Khan A, Arthur D, Wazer D, Vicini F. Ultra-short fraction schedules as part of de-intensification strategies for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:5005–5014.
      1. Polgár C, Van Limbergen E, Pötter R, Kovács G, Polo A, Lyczek J, et al. Patient selection for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) after breast-conserving surgery: recommendations of the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) breast cancer working group based on clinical evidence (2009). Radiother Oncol 2010;94:264–273.
      1. Correa C, Harris EE, Leonardi MC, Smith BD, Taghian AG, Thompson AM, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: executive summary for the update of an ASTRO evidence-based consensus statement. Pract Radiat Oncol 2017;7:73–79.
      1. Kaidar-Person O, Meattini I, Zippel D, Poortmans P. Apples and oranges: comparing partial breast irradiation techniques. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2020;25:780–782.
      1. Shah C, Vicini F, Shaitelman SF, Hepel J, Keisch M, Arthur D, et al. The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation. Brachytherapy 2018;17:154–170.
      1. Hepel JT, Wazer DE. Update on partial breast irradiation. Clin Breast Cancer 2021;21:96–102.
      1. Peterson D, Truong PT, Parpia S, Olivotto IA, Berrang T, Kim DH, et al. Predictors of adverse cosmetic outcome in the RAPID trial: an exploratory analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;91:968–976.
      1. Jeong JU, Yoon JH, Park MH, Yoon MS, Song JY, Nam TK, et al. A phase I/II trial to evaluate the technical feasibility of partial breast irradiation with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in Korean women with stage I breast carcinoma: an initial report of the Korean Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (KROG) Study 0804. Cancer Res Treat 2015;47:18–25.
      1. Lee WH, Chang JS, Kim MJ, Park VY, Yoon JH, Kim SY, et al. First experience in Korea of stereotactic partial breast irradiation for low-risk early-stage breast cancer. Front Oncol 2020;10:672.
      1. Jeon SH, Shin KH, Park SY, Kim JI, Park JM, Kim JH, et al. Seroma change during magnetic resonance imaging-guided partial breast irradiation and its clinical implications. Radiat Oncol 2017;12:103.
      1. Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P, Weltens C, Fourquet A, Jager J, et al. Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:47–56.
      1. Poortmans PM, Collette L, Horiot JC, Van den Bogaert WF, Fourquet A, Kuten A, 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;90:80–85.
      1. Singla R, King S, Albuquerque K, Creech S, Dogan N. Simultaneous-integrated boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SIB-IMRT) in the treatment of early-stage left-sided breast carcinoma. Med Dosim 2006;31:190–196.
      1. Donovan EM, Ciurlionis L, Fairfoul J, James H, Mayles H, Manktelow S, et al. Planning with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy to modulate dose across breast to reflect recurrence risk (IMPORT High trial). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:1064–1072.
      1. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:987–998.
      1. Chung SY, Oh J, Chang JS, Shin J, Kim KH, Chun KH, et al. Risk of cardiac disease in patients with breast cancer: impact of patient-specific factors and individual heart dose from three-dimensional radiation therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;110:473–481.
      1. Ling DC, Moppins BL, Champ CE, Gorantla VC, Beriwal S. Quality of regional nodal irradiation plans in breast cancer patients across a large network-can we translate results from randomized trials into the clinic? Pract Radiat Oncol 2021;11:e30–e35.
      1. Ranger A, Dunlop A, Hutchinson K, Convery H, Maclennan MK, Chantler H, et al. A dosimetric comparison of breast radiotherapy techniques to treat locoregional lymph nodes including the internal mammary chain. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018;30:346–353.
      1. Ho AY, Ballangrud A, Li G, Gupta GP, McCormick B, Gewanter R, et al. Long-term pulmonary outcomes of a feasibility study of inverse-planned, multibeam intensity modulated radiation therapy in node-positive breast cancer patients receiving regional nodal irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;103:1100–1108.
      1. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Moran JM, Ficaro E, Marsh R, Dess RT, et al. A randomized comparison of radiation therapy techniques in the management of node-positive breast cancer: primary outcomes analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018;101:1149–1158.
      1. Song SY, Chang JS, Fan KL, Kim MJ, Chang HP, Lew DH, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy decreases postoperative complications in prosthetic breast reconstructions: a clinicopathologic study. Front Oncol 2020;10:577136
      1. Chang JS, Song SY, Oh JH, Lew DH, Roh TS, Kim SY, et al. Influence of radiation dose to reconstructed breast following mastectomy on complication in breast cancer patients undergoing two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Front Oncol 2019;9:243.
      1. Chang KH, Chang JS, Park K, Chung SY, Kim SY, Park RH, et al. A retrospective dosimetric analysis of the new ESTRO-ACROP target volume delineation guidelines for postmastectomy volumetric modulated arc therapy after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. Front Oncol 2020;10:578921
      1. Xiang M, Chang DT, Pollom EL. Second cancer risk after primary cancer treatment with three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, or proton beam radiation therapy. Cancer 2020;126:3560–3568.
      1. Tringale KR, Casey DL, Niyazov G, Lavery JA, Moskowitz C, Friedman DN, et al. Second cancer risk in childhood cancer survivors treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy: an updated analysis of more than 10 years of follow-up. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2022;69:e29600
      1. Huq MS, Fraass BA, Dunscombe PB, Gibbons JP Jr, Ibbott GS, Mundt AJ, et al. The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management. Med Phys 2016;43:4209–4262.
      1. Chang JS, Choi MS, Kim K, Chun M, Chun J, Kim JS, et al. Contouring variations in breast cancer radiation therapy: first analysis of KROG 21-01 – qualitive improvement of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for breast cancer; presented at 39th KOSRO meeting; 2021 Oct 8; Seoul. Seoul: Korean Society for Radiation Oncology; 2021.
    Cited by
    Crossref 12
    Google Scholar 
    PubMed Central 7
    Scopus 11
    Web of Science 9
    MeSH Terms
    Breast Neoplasms*
    Breast*
    Humans
    Radiotherapy*
    Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated*
    Metrics
    Share
    Links to
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 6

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    ORCID IDs
    Funding Information
    PERMALINK