Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:07:40.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlation between clinically measured breast size and CT-measured breast volume: implications for prone breast radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Elizabeth Alwers ,
Andrea González ,
Felipe Torres ,
Juan C. Arbeláez ,
Armando Gaitán  and
Ricardo Cendales
Elizabeth Alwers*
Affiliation:
Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Bogotá, Colombia
Andrea González
Affiliation:
Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Bogotá, Colombia
Felipe Torres
Affiliation:
Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Bogotá, Colombia
Juan C. Arbeláez
Affiliation:
Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Bogotá, Colombia
Armando Gaitán
Affiliation:
Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Bogotá, Colombia
Ricardo Cendales
Affiliation:
Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Bogotá, Colombia
*
Correspondence to: Elizabeth Alwers, Centro de Control de Cáncer Ltda, Cra 16ª # 83-19, Bogotá, Colombia. Tel: +571 2366927 ext 1701. E-mail: elizabeth.alwers@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if a patient’s breast size accurately correlates with the breast volume measured in the computed tomography (CT) scan, and to determine which sizes correspond to a volume >750 cc; in order to predict which patients will benefit from breast irradiation in the prone position.

Methods

Breast size was calculated as the difference between the thoracic (band) and breast (bust) circumferences. Breast volume was contoured by a radiation oncologist and measured on the simulation CT scan. Pearson’s coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between both variables. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal cut-off point to predict which differences between band and bust would be associated with a volume ≥750 cc.

Results

Fifty-nine patients were included in this study. Mean breast volume was 851·8 cc and mean size difference was 4·7 inches. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0·61 (p<0·001). The ROC analysis determined that a difference of 5 inches between the band and bust circumferences was the optimal cut-off point to determine a breast volume of 750 cc.

Conclusions

A significant correlation between breast size as measured in the clinical practice and breast volume measured in the CT scan was found. Among other characteristics, a 5-inch difference between breast band and bust will be the cut-off point to decide if a patient will be treated prone at our institution.

Keywords

breast volumebreast sizeprone breast radiation therapy
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 354 - 358
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

1. Ferlay, J, Soerjomataram, I, Ervik, M et al. GLOBOCAN 2012. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2013.Google Scholar
2. Osa, E-O O, DeWyngaert, K, Roses, D et al. Prone breast intensity modulated radiation therapy: 5-year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 89 (4): 899–906.Google Scholar
3. Becker, S J, Elliston, C, DeWyngaert, K, Jozsef, G, Brenner, D, Formenti, S. Breast radiotherapy in the prone position primarily reduces the maximum out-of-field measured dose to the ipsilateral lung. Med Phys 2012; 39 (5): 2417–2423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Formenti, S C, DeWyngaert, J K, Jozsef, G, Goldberg, J D. Prone vs supine positioning for breast cancer radiotherapy. J Am Med Assoc 2012; 308 (9): 861–863.Google Scholar
5. Stegman, L D, Beal, K P, Hunt, M A, Fornier, M N, 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.Google Scholar
6. Buijsen, J, Jager, J J, Bovendeerd, J et al. Prone breast irradiation for pendulous breasts. Radiother Oncol 2007; 82 (3): 337–340.Google Scholar
7. Fernández-Lizarbe, E, Montero, A, Polo, A et al. Pilot study of feasibility and dosimetric comparison of prone versus supine breast radiotherapy. Clin Transl Oncol 2013; 15 (6): 450–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Bergom, C, Kelly, T, Morrow, N et al. Prone whole-breast irradiation using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in women undergoing breast conservation for early disease yields high rates of excellent to good cosmetic outcomes in patients with large and/or pendulous breasts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (3): 821–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Grann, A, McCormick, B, Chabner, E S et al. Prone breast radiotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: a preliminary analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47 (2): 319–325.Google Scholar
10. Johansen, J, Overgaard, J, Rose, C et al. Cosmetic outcome and breast morbidity in breast-conserving treatment. Acta Oncol 2002; 41 (4): 369–380.Google Scholar
11. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. NSABP protocol B-39, RTOG protocol 0413: a randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with Stage 0, I, or II breast cancer. Philadelphia, PA: RTOG, 2005. http://atc.wustl.edu/protocols/nsabp/b-39/0413.pdf. Accessed on April 2016.Google Scholar
12. Coltman, C, MCGhee, D, Steele, J. Association between breast volume and bra size in a cohort of women with large breasts. The 9th Australasian Biomechanics Conference (ABC9), 30 November - 2 December 2014, University of Wollongong, Australia.Google Scholar