Main Session
Sep 28
PQA 04 - Breast Cancer, Patient Reported Outcomes/QoL/Survivorship, Functional Radiation Medicine, Hematologic Malignancies, Palliative Care, and International/Global Oncology

2798 - Simultaneous Integrated Proton Boost vs. Sequential Proton Boost in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Dosimetric Analysis of Normal Tissue Exposure and Biologically Effective Dose

03:00pm - 04:00pm ET
Poster Hall - Exhibit Hall A
Screen: 1
POSTER

Presenter(s)

Natalia Martynova, MD - Dr. Berezin Medical Institute, Saint-Petersburg, Saint Pete

M. Linnik1, N. Martynova1, N. Vorobyov1,2, E. Spiridenko1, A. Kalesnik1, E. Andronova1, G. Andreev1, K. Suprun1,3, I. Plugar'1, and I. Avryasov1; 1Dr. Berezin Medical Institute, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation, 2Saint-Petersburg State University, St.Petersburg, Russian Federation, 3Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation

Purpose/Objective(s): Sequential proton boost (SEQ) prolongs treatment and may expose uninvolved breast tissue to high radiation doses due to field overlap. Simultaneous integrated proton boost (SIB-P) offers a hypofractionated approach with potential dosimetric advantages. This study compares SIB-P versus SEQ regarding physical and biologically effective doses to uninvolved breast tissue (NBT), skin, and other organs at risk (OAR).

Materials/Methods: A retrospective paired-plan analysis was performed for 71 consecutive patients (2025) receiving whole breast and regional nodal irradiation. SEQ delivered 15×2.67 Gy(RBE) to breast + 5×2.67 Gy(RBE) boost. SIB-P delivered 15×2.67 Gy(RBE) to breast/nodes with SIB of 15×3.2 Gy(RBE) to tumor bed. Both adhered to isotoxic NCCN constraints. NBT (CTV breast minus CTV tumor bed) physical Dmean and EQD2 (a/ß=3) were assessed. Skin EQD2 (a/ß=3) was evaluated within a 1 cm boost expansion ROI. OAR parameters included heart (V8Gy, V16Gy, Dmean), ipsilateral lung (V4Gy, V8Gy, V16Gy), contralateral breast Dmax, and LAD (Dmean, Dmax). Boost location (medial/lateral/central) was analyzed for left-sided patients (n=44). Statistics: Wilcoxon, paired t-test, ANOVA, Spearman.

Results: SIB-P reduced physical NBT Dmean by 2.05 Gy (p<0.001), but NBT EQD2 increased by 2.67 Gy (p<0.001). Skin sparing improved: median Dmax EQD2 decreased from 61.0 Gy to 59.8 Gy (p<0.001); mean dose within skin ROI decreased by 1.92 Gy (55.47 vs. 57.72 Gy, p<0.001). Plans exceeding 65 Gy (telangiectasia threshold) dropped from 14% to 4% (p=0.02). Ipsilateral lung V16Gy was lower with SIB-P (18.70% vs. 19.49%, p=0.018). Heart, LAD, and contralateral breast doses showed no significant differences. Skin dose exhibited pronounced individual variability (?~0.55); greatest reduction occurred in superficial tumors (skin-to-boost distance <5 mm, mean EQD2 reduction >3 Gy). Boost location did not significantly influence NBT EQD2 change (p=0.51). Baseline NBT dose correlated with physical dose reduction (?=0.44, p<0.001).

Conclusion: SIB-P reduces physical dose to NBT, lung, and skin while maintaining cardiac safety. However, increased NBT EQD2 may impact long-term fibrosis and cosmesis. These advantages, combined with shorter treatment, support SIB-P as a preferred technique, particularly in patients with high baseline NBT exposure, warranting prospective evaluation of cosmetic outcomes.