Abstract
Radiotherapy has long been used in the management of malignant and benign conditions alike, but only in recent decades have the long term implications of cardiac exposure been comprehensively delineated. In this chapter, we present the evolution of radiotherapy technologies, image guided targeting approaches, and patient positioning maneuvers, that have significantly reduced treatment-related morbidity, particularly as related to long term cardiac outcomes.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Since shortly after Wilhelm Roentgen’s discovery of the X-ray in 1895 [1], ionizing radiation has been used to treat a variety of benign and malignant conditions alike. Early applications of X-rays were limited to superficial cutaneous lesions due to the underperformance of poorly penetrating low-energy beams at significant tissue depth. The discovery of naturally occurring isotopes [2] and the later development of the linear accelerator [3] allowed for more energetic penetrating photons to treat deeply seated lesions such as the visceral or brain tumors that today are routinely ablated in non-invasive fashion. With the development of high-energy beams, however, emerged a concurrent need to protect critical deep structures that might now be at risk of radiation injury.
Although contemporary radiotherapy is largely delivered using high-energy photons (i.e., X-rays and gamma rays), the physical properties of particle-based beams are routinely exploited for their dosimetric advantages. To illustrate, X-rays deposit energy along a beam path that gradually dissipates while traversing the patient, typically yielding an “exit dose” beyond the target tumor that exposes distal tissues. Protons, conversely, by virtue of having mass and charge, maximally interact with tissue at an energetically predetermined depth (the “Bragg peak”), fully depositing energy at a given depth and sparing the tissues beyond (Fig. 22.1). This fundamental property of proton-based techniques is often exploited to limit normal-tissue toxicity, as in the treatment of pediatric central nervous system malignancies where the ability to spare adjacent developing brain structures preserves cognitive function [4, 5]. Aside from photons and protons, other particle beams including electrons, neutrons, and carbon ions, among other investigational approaches, are also in use.
The central challenge of radiotherapy, as alluded to above, is striking a balance between sufficient tumor dose and adequate sparing of adjacent non-target tissues. This principle is perhaps best illustrated by the history of breast and thoracic radiation. Prior to the advent of effective systemic therapies for breast cancer, disease control was exceedingly poor and adjuvant (i.e. post-operative) radiotherapy was broadly employed following mastectomy. These early efforts typically treated the regional lymph node basins comprehensively (including the internal mammary nodes) yet lacked three-dimensional thoracic imaging or techniques that might allow for cardiac avoidance, as is standard today. Consequently, long-term follow-up of these early patients demonstrated an excess of deaths among those receiving post-mastectomy radiation, suggesting that radiotherapy was partly contributing to a reduction in survival [6]. Focused analyses from that era have variably identified the causes of excess mortality among those receiving radiation as acute myocardial infarction [7] or “cardiovascular disease” more generally, prompting modifications to field design and a reconsideration of the appropriate risk–benefit considerations [8].
Cardiotoxic sequelae were similarly observed, if more dramatically, among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who relied extensively on nodal irradiation prior to the advent of contemporary systemic regimens [9]. Often young at the time of radiation, these patients sustained elevated cardiac doses from wholesale treatment of the mediastinal lymph nodes and were broadly reported to exhibit an increased risk of valvular disease, atherosclerosis, and cardiomyopathies [10,11,12,13].
As evidence for the cardiac implications of radiotherapy mounted, a seminal study conducted by Darby et al. yielded what has now become a landmark finding [14]. In a population-based case–control study among 2168 women who underwent breast cancer radiotherapy, rates of major coronary events appeared to increase linearly with mean heart dose by 7.4% per gray (95% CI 2.9 to 14.5). Whereas mean heart doses in this outdated cohort ranged significantly higher than currently allowable limits, the report was particularly notable for demonstrating that there is no lower bound below which radiation ceases to influence cardiac risk. Mindful of these findings, contemporary practice has significantly mitigated heart dose and concomitant cardiovascular risk as discussed below.
To revisit the utility of adjuvant breast radiation since the early days when cardiac avoidance was not practicable, a series of landmark trials recently evaluated the benefits of comprehensive adjuvant radiation for breast cancer in the context of contemporary planning techniques and a nuanced appreciation for cardiac risk. The MA.20 [15] and EORTC 22922 [16] trials randomized patients to receive regional nodal irradiation following lumpectomy or mastectomy and, in contrast to the historical findings above, both trials observed a 3–5% disease-free survival benefit to treating the regional lymph nodes among appropriate breast cancer patients. Notably, despite treating the internal mammary nodes in both studies, the rate of cardiac adverse events was exceedingly rare (0.9% on MA.20) and was not significantly different in either study between those receiving radiation or not.
Thoracic radiotherapy for lung cancer has also been illustrative of the cardiac implications of radiotherapy. In the seminal RTOG 0617 trial of dose-escalation for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), investigators evaluated whether a radiation dose of 74 Gy could improve disease control as compared to the prevailing 60 Gy standard dose [17]. To the surprise of many, the study revealed that the investigational 74 Gy conferred a potential decrement in survival, counter to the trial hypothesis and opposing the otherwise notable trends of improved disease control with higher doses in NSCLC. Much has since been written about this failure of dose-escalation, with many positing that higher doses do effect improved tumor control, but that an excess of mortality arises from the concomitant cardiopulmonary effects of radiation [18, 19].
Several studies have attempted to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology of radiation induced cardiac disease. In an autopsy series that included 27 cases [20], Veinot and Edwards identified pericardial injury in 70%, with effusion and tamponade in a subset. Similarly, radiation-associated valvular disease was identified in 71% of patients (mean dose 46 Gy), with 25 examined valves (8 aortic, 9 mitral, 5 tricuspid, and 3 pulmonary) all showing diffuse cusp or leaflet fibrosis without evidence of post-inflammatory change such as chronic inflammation or neovascularization, suggesting an alternate pathway to fibrotic injury from radiation. Perhaps most notably, 16 subjects had evaluable myocardium with 10 (63%) harboring interstitial fibrosis attributable to radiation injury, while 13 had evaluable coronary arteries with 2 young men (26 and 44 years old) showing significant narrowing via atherosclerosis or fibrointimal thickening attributable to radiation damage. Coronary disease in these two subjects was noted to be “disproportionately severe” in light of their non-radiation risk factors. Thus, radiation induced heart disease putatively affects every cardiac substructure, and subsequent studies have suggested that tissue fibrosis represents the unifying etiologic pathway [21].
Indeed, the implications of cardiac radiation exposure have now set the stage for a burgeoning industry of cardiac avoidance devices and techniques that are commonly used in clinical practice. Among these are prone immobilizers for breast cancer, allowing patients to be treated in the prone position as gravity is used to displace the target breast tissue away from the underlying heart (Fig. 22.2). The respiratory cycle can also be exploited to optimize cardiac positioning away from a nearby target. This approach uses respiratory gating, or the Deep-Inspiration Breath-Hold (DIBH) technique, whereby breathing is monitored via imaging or spirometry and radiation is delivered only during the most favorable anatomic phase of the respiratory cycle (Fig. 22.3). In breast radiotherapy, for example, treatment is often delivered during end-inspiration when the lungs are maximally inflated and the heart is displaced postero-inferiorly relative to the target internal mammary nodes which may otherwise be mere millimeters from the right ventricle during end exhalation (Fig. 22.4). These techniques, along with advanced planning modalities such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) (Fig. 22.5), are routinely brought to bear in mitigating the cardiac and normal-tissue effects of radiation.
Thus, while there is no tumor that cannot be controlled with a sufficiently high dose of radiation, the countervailing sensitivity of adjacent structures may limit the feasibility of delivering an adequately ablative dose. The heart represents one such limiting organ, with potential for radiation injury to each cardiac substructure. As a result, contemporary radiation approaches employ combinations of advanced particle beams, novel beam shaping techniques, and patient positioning to limit cardiac toxicity while precisely targeting thoracic-based malignancies including tumors of the breast, lung, and mediastinum. Meanwhile, substantial efforts are underway to optimize prophylactic and therapeutic approaches to mitigate radiation-associated cardiac injury, and to prolonging survival via oncologic and cardiac approaches alike.
References
Röntgen W. Uber eine neue Art von Strahlen (On a new kind of rays). Vorläufige Mittheilung Aus den Sitzungsberichten der Würzburger Physik-medic Gesellschaft Würzburg: Stahel’sche K Hof und Universitätsbuchund Kunsthandlung; 1895. p. 137–47.
Curie P. Radioactive substances, especially radium. Nobel lecture 1905;6.
Ueyama T, Lécuyer C. Building Science-based Medicine at Stanford: Henry Kaplan and the Medical Linear Accelerator, 1948–1975. Devices and Designs: Springer; 2006. p. 137–55.
Pulsifer MB, Duncanson H, Grieco J, et al. Cognitive and adaptive outcomes after proton radiation for pediatric patients with brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102:391–8.
Pulsifer MB, Sethi RV, Kuhlthau KA, MacDonald SM, Tarbell NJ, Yock TI. Early cognitive outcomes following proton radiation in pediatric patients with brain and central nervous system tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93:400–7.
Cuzick J, Stewart H, Peto R, et al. Overview of randomized trials of postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep. 1987;71:15–29.
Wallgren A, Arner O, Bergström J, et al. Radiation therapy in operable breast cancer: results from the Stockholm trial on adjuvant radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 1986;12:533–7.
Harris JR, Hellman S. Put the “hockey stick” on ice. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 1988;15:497–9.
Goyal G, Silberstein PT, Armitage JO. Trends in use of radiation therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma from 2000 to 2012 on the basis of the national cancer data base. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2016;16:12–7.
Hull MC, Morris CG, Pepine CJ, Mendenhall NP. Valvular dysfunction and carotid, subclavian, and coronary artery disease in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma treated with radiation therapy. JAMA. 2003;290:2831–7.
Applefeld M, Slawson R, Spicer K, Singleton R, Wesley M, Wiernik P. Long-term cardiovascular evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease treated by thoracic mantle radiation therapy. Cancer Treat Rep. 1982;66:1003–13.
Adams MJ, Hardenbergh PH, Constine LS, Lipshultz SE. Radiation-associated cardiovascular disease. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;45:55–75.
Hancock SL, Donaldson SS, Hoppe RT. Cardiac disease following treatment of Hodgkin’s disease in children and adolescents. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:1208–15.
Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:987–98.
Whelan TJ, Olivotto IA, Parulekar WR, et al. Regional nodal irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:307–16.
Poortmans PM, Collette S, Kirkove C, et al. Internal mammary and medial supraclavicular irradiation in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:317–27.
Bradley JD, Paulus R, Komaki R, et al. Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:187–99.
Cox JD. Are the results of RTOG 0617 mysterious? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1042–4.
Thor M, Deasy JO, Hu C, et al. Modeling the impact of cardio-pulmonary irradiation on overall survival in NRG Oncology trial RTOG 0617. Clinical Cancer Research 2020.
Veinot JP, Edwards WD. Pathology of radiation-induced heart disease: a surgical and autopsy study of 27 cases. Hum Pathol. 1996;27:766–73.
Taunk NK, Haffty BG, Kostis JB, Goyal S. Radiation-induced heart disease: pathologic abnormalities and putative mechanisms. Front Oncol. 2015;5:39.
Takahashi K, Morota M, Kagami Y, et al. Prospective study of postoperative whole breast radiotherapy for Japanese large-breasted women: a clinical and dosimetric comparisons between supine and prone positions and a dose measurement using a breast phantom. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:757.
Hasson BF, Yeung D, Palta J. Bragg peak. In: Brady LW, Yaeger TE, editors. Encyclopedia of Radiation Oncology. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85516-3_657.
Schönecker S, Walter F, Freislederer P, Marisch C, Scheithauer H, Harbeck N, et al. Treatment planning and evaluation of gated radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer patients using the CatalystTM/SentinelTM system for deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0716-5.
Aiello D, Borzì GR, Marino L, Umina V, Di Grazia AM. Comparison of deep inspiration breath hold and free breathing technique in left breast cancer irradiation: a dosimetric evaluation in 40 patients. J Radiation Oncol. 2019;8(1):89–96.
Choi KH, Kim J, Lee SW, Kang YN, Jang H. Dosimetric comparison between modulated arc therapy and static intensity modulated radiotherapy in thoracic esophageal cancer: a single institutional experience. Radiat Oncol J. 2018 Mar;36(1):63–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2017.00241.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Braunstein, L.Z., Cahlon, O. (2021). Introduction to the Cardiac Implications of Radiotherapy. In: Steingart, R.M., Liu, J.E. (eds) Atlas of Imaging in Cardio-Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70998-3_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70998-3_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70997-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70998-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)