Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:41:29.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abducting both arms improves stability during breast radiotherapy: The Bi Arm study in radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

SG Simon Goldsworthy ,
NS Noreen Sinclair ,
JT Jean Tremlett ,
AC Anthony Chalmers ,
MF Michael Francis  and
RS Richard Simcock
SG Simon Goldsworthy*
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy, The Beacon centre, Musgrove Park Hospital Taunton, Somerset, UK; formerly Radiotherapy, Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
NS Noreen Sinclair
Affiliation:
Therapeutic Radiography, Faculty of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK
JT Jean Tremlett
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy, Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
AC Anthony Chalmers
Affiliation:
Genome Damage and Stability Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
MF Michael Francis
Affiliation:
The Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK
RS Richard Simcock
Affiliation:
Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
*
Correspondence to: SG Simon Goldsworthy, 1 Baileys gate, Cotford St Luke, Taunton, TA4 1JE. E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: A randomised study to investigate whether bilateral arm abduction is superior to unilateral abduction with respect to stability using shifts on treatment as the main outcome measure.

Material and Methods: 50 consecutive female patients were randomised to ipsilateral or bilateral arm abduction. Central lung depth (CLD) and cranial caudal depth (CCD) on the simulator image was compared with that featured on three Electronic Portal Images (EPI) captured during treatment for each patient. Systematic and random errors were analysed with respect to the average translational displacement and standard deviation per patient and per population between the planning image and the EPI.

Results: The CLD average translational displacement in the test group was −1.7 mm (95% CI = −5 to 1.6 mm) Σ pop = 2.3 mm, σ pop = 1.6 mm, and in the control group −1.9 mm (95% CI = −6 to 3 mm) Σ pop = 4 mm, σ pop = 2.1 mm. The average translational displacement of CCD in test group was 0 mm (95% CI = − 5.3 to 5.1 mm) Σ pop = 2.2 mm, σ pop = 2.6 mm. CCD translational displacement was greater in the unilateral arm abduction group at − 1.6 mm (95% CI = −6.7 to 3.4 mm) Σ pop = 3.6 mm, σ pop = 2.4mm.

Conclusion: The reduction in systematic error and inter-patient variability observed in the test group is evidence that bilateral arm abduction is a more stable and reproducible position than unilateral arm abduction. The CCD translational data indicates that patients treated with unilateral arm abduction were moving inferiorly on the breast board. These results support the adoption of bilateral arm abduction as a standard technique.

Keywords

ImmobilisationImmobilizationBreastBreast CancerRadiotherapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 250 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Winfield, E, Deighton, A, Venables, K, Hoskin, PJ, Aird, EG. A survey of UK breast radiotherapy techniques: background prior to the introduction of the quality assurance programme for the START (Standardisation of Radiotherapy) trial in breast cancer. Clin Oncol 2002; 14:267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallis, KA, Cannock, IF. Postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: growing evidence for an impact on survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:88–89.Google Scholar
Dongen, JAV, Voogd, AC, Fentiman, IS et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast conserving therapy with mastectomy: European organization for research and treatment of cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1143–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinh-Hung, V. Verschraegen C Breast – conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy: a pooled analysis of unilateral breast tumour reoccurrence and mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:115–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobbs, J, Barrett, A, Morris, SL, Roques, T. Practical radiotherapy planning (4th edn). Hodder Arnold, United Kingdom, 2009, pp. 265–282.Google Scholar
Graham, P, Elomari, F, Browne, L. Armrest versus vacuum bag immobilisation in the treatment of breast cancer by radiation therapy: a randomised comparison. Aust Radiol 2000; 44:193–197.Google Scholar
Sandwith, B, Bishop, J, Patenaude, V, Ludbrook, J, Truong, P. Comparing set up reproducibility in tangential breast radiotherapy using Vacubag versus breast board immobilization. Radiother Oncol 2003; 69:S26.Google Scholar
The Royal College of Radiologists, Society and College of Radiographers. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine on Target: ensuring geometric accuracy in radiotherapy. London: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2008, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
Herk, MV. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14:52–64.Google ScholarPubMed
The START Trialists’ Group. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionated for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2008; 371:1098–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eng, J. Sample estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology 2003; 227:309–313.Google Scholar