Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Breast Cancer | Research

Three-dimensional surface imaging in breast cancer: a new tool for clinical studies?

Authors: Konstantin Christoph Koban, Lucas Etzel, Zhouxiao Li, Montserrat Pazos, Stephan Schönecker, Claus Belka, Riccardo Enzo Giunta, Thilo Ludwig Schenck, Stefanie Corradini

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Three-dimensional Surface Imaging (3DSI) is a well-established method to objectively monitor morphological changes in the female breast in the field of plastic surgery. In contrast, in radiation oncology we are still missing effective tools, which can objectively and reproducibly assess and document adverse events in breast cancer radiotherapy within the framework of clinical studies. The aim of the present study was to apply structured-light technology as a non-invasive and objective approach for the documentation of cosmetic outcome and early effects of breast radiotherapy as a proof of principle.

Methods

Weekly 3DSI images of patients receiving either conventionally fractionated radiation treatment (CF-RT) or hypofractionated radiation treatment (HF-RT) were acquired during the radiotherapy treatment and clinical follow-up. The portable Artec Eva scanner (Artec 3D Inc., Luxembourg) recorded 3D surface images for the analysis of breast volumes and changes in skin appearance. Statistical analysis compared the impact of the two different fractionation regimens and the differences between the treated and the contralateral healthy breast.

Results

Overall, 38 patients and a total of 214 breast imaging sessions were analysed. Patients receiving CF-RT showed a significantly higher frequency of breast erythema compared to HF-RT (93.3% versus 34.8%, p = 0.003) during all observed imaging sessions. Moreover, we found a statistically significant (p < 0.05) volumetric increase of the treated breast of the entire cohort between baseline (379 ± 196 mL) and follow-up imaging at 3 months (437 ± 224 mL), as well as from week 3 of radiotherapy (391 ± 198 mL) to follow-up imaging. In both subgroups of patients undergoing either CF-RT or HF-RT, there was a statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in breast volumes between baseline and 3 months follow-up. There were no statistically significant skin or volumetric changes of the untreated healthy breasts.

Conclusions

This is the first study utilizing 3D structured-light technology as a non-invasive and objective approach for the documentation of patients receiving breast radiotherapy. 3DSI offers potential as a non-invasive tool to objectively and precisely monitor the female breast in a radiooncological setting, allowing clinicians to objectively distinguish outcomes of different therapy modalities.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Corradini S, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery – a comparative effectiveness research study. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:28–34.CrossRef Corradini S, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery – a comparative effectiveness research study. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:28–34.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Corradini S, et al. Mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy for early breast Cancer in real-life clinical practice: outcome comparison of 7565 cases. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(160).CrossRef Corradini S, et al. Mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy for early breast Cancer in real-life clinical practice: outcome comparison of 7565 cases. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(160).CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chitapanarux I, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy: a report on long-term outcomes and late toxicity. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:175.CrossRef Chitapanarux I, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy: a report on long-term outcomes and late toxicity. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:175.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Whelan TJ, et al. Long-term results of Hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513–20.CrossRef Whelan TJ, et al. Long-term results of Hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513–20.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Haviland JS, et al. The UK standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1086–94.CrossRef Haviland JS, et al. The UK standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1086–94.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Brunt AM, et al. Acute skin toxicity associated with a 1-week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy compared with a standard 3-week regimen delivered in the UK FAST-forward trial. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120:114–8.CrossRef Brunt AM, et al. Acute skin toxicity associated with a 1-week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy compared with a standard 3-week regimen delivered in the UK FAST-forward trial. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120:114–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Yarnold JR. First results of the randomised UK FAST trial of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer (CRUKE/04/015). Radiother Oncol. 2011;100:93–100.CrossRef Yarnold JR. First results of the randomised UK FAST trial of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer (CRUKE/04/015). Radiother Oncol. 2011;100:93–100.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hopwood P, et al. Comparison of patient-reported breast, arm, and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:231–40.CrossRef Hopwood P, et al. Comparison of patient-reported breast, arm, and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:231–40.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Shaitelman SF, et al. Three-year outcomes with Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation: results of a randomized, Noninferiority Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3495–503.CrossRef Shaitelman SF, et al. Three-year outcomes with Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation: results of a randomized, Noninferiority Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3495–503.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Agrawal RK, et al. The UK standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1098–107.CrossRef Agrawal RK, et al. The UK standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1098–107.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Matuschek C, et al. Long-term cosmetic outcome after preoperative radio−/chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Strahlentherapie und Onkol. 2019;195:615–28.CrossRef Matuschek C, et al. Long-term cosmetic outcome after preoperative radio−/chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Strahlentherapie und Onkol. 2019;195:615–28.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tsay C, Zhu V, Sturrock T, Shah A, Kwei S. A 3D Mammometric comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction with and without Acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Aesthet Plast Surg. 2018;42:49–58.CrossRef Tsay C, Zhu V, Sturrock T, Shah A, Kwei S. A 3D Mammometric comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction with and without Acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Aesthet Plast Surg. 2018;42:49–58.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Tepper OM, et al. 3D analysis of breast augmentation defines operative changes and their relationship to implant dimensions. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62:570–5.CrossRef Tepper OM, et al. 3D analysis of breast augmentation defines operative changes and their relationship to implant dimensions. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62:570–5.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Koban KC, Frank K, Etzel L, Schenck TL, Giunta RE. 3D Mammometric changes in the treatment of idiopathic Gynecomastia. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2019;43:616–24.CrossRef Koban KC, Frank K, Etzel L, Schenck TL, Giunta RE. 3D Mammometric changes in the treatment of idiopathic Gynecomastia. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2019;43:616–24.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Reitz D, et al. Real-time intra-fraction motion management in breast cancer radiotherapy: analysis of 2028 treatment sessions. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:128.CrossRef Reitz D, et al. Real-time intra-fraction motion management in breast cancer radiotherapy: analysis of 2028 treatment sessions. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:128.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Carl G, et al. Optical surface scanning for patient positioning in radiation therapy: a prospective analysis of 1902 fractions. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018;17:153303381880600.CrossRef Carl G, et al. Optical surface scanning for patient positioning in radiation therapy: a prospective analysis of 1902 fractions. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018;17:153303381880600.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Schonecker S, 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.CrossRef Schonecker S, 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.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hamming VC, et al. Evaluation of a 3D surface imaging system for deep inspiration breath-hold patient positioning and intra-fraction monitoring. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:125.CrossRef Hamming VC, et al. Evaluation of a 3D surface imaging system for deep inspiration breath-hold patient positioning and intra-fraction monitoring. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:125.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Tzou CHJ, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2014;67:489–97.CrossRef Tzou CHJ, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2014;67:489–97.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Cotofana S, et al. The surface-volume coefficient of the superficial and deep facial fat compartments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:1605–13.CrossRef Cotofana S, et al. The surface-volume coefficient of the superficial and deep facial fat compartments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:1605–13.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Koban KC, et al. Precision in 3-dimensional surface imaging of the face: a handheld scanner comparison performed in a cadaveric model. Aesthetic Surg J. 2019;39:NP36–44.CrossRef Koban KC, et al. Precision in 3-dimensional surface imaging of the face: a handheld scanner comparison performed in a cadaveric model. Aesthetic Surg J. 2019;39:NP36–44.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Seminati E, et al. Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0184498.CrossRef Seminati E, et al. Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0184498.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Modabber A, et al. Influence of connecting two standalone Mobile three-dimensional scanners on accuracy comparing with a standard device in facial scanning. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2016;7:e4.CrossRef Modabber A, et al. Influence of connecting two standalone Mobile three-dimensional scanners on accuracy comparing with a standard device in facial scanning. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2016;7:e4.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Offersen BV, et al. ESTRO consensus guideline on target volume delineation for elective radiation therapy of early stage breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:3–10.CrossRef Offersen BV, et al. ESTRO consensus guideline on target volume delineation for elective radiation therapy of early stage breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:3–10.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Schenck TL, et al. Updated anatomy of the buccal space and its implications for plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic procedures. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71:162–70.CrossRef Schenck TL, et al. Updated anatomy of the buccal space and its implications for plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic procedures. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71:162–70.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Grant CA, Johnston M, Adam CJ, Little JP. Accuracy of 3D surface scanners for clinical torso and spinal deformity assessment. Med Eng Phys. 2019;63:63–71.CrossRef Grant CA, Johnston M, Adam CJ, Little JP. Accuracy of 3D surface scanners for clinical torso and spinal deformity assessment. Med Eng Phys. 2019;63:63–71.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Borm KJ, et al. Acute radiodermatitis in modern adjuvant 3D conformal radiotherapy for breast cancer - the impact of dose distribution and patient related factors. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:218.CrossRef Borm KJ, et al. Acute radiodermatitis in modern adjuvant 3D conformal radiotherapy for breast cancer - the impact of dose distribution and patient related factors. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:218.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Liang X, et al. Prognostic factors of radiation dermatitis following passive-scattering proton therapy for breast cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:72.CrossRef Liang X, et al. Prognostic factors of radiation dermatitis following passive-scattering proton therapy for breast cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:72.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Partl R, Lehner J, Winkler P, Kapp KS. Testing the feasibility of augmented digital skin imaging to objectively compare the efficacy of topical treatments for radiodermatitis. PLoS One. 2019;14:1–11.CrossRef Partl R, Lehner J, Winkler P, Kapp KS. Testing the feasibility of augmented digital skin imaging to objectively compare the efficacy of topical treatments for radiodermatitis. PLoS One. 2019;14:1–11.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Partl, R. et al 128 SHADES of RED: Objective remote assessment of radiation dermatitis by augmented digital skin imaging. Stud Health Technol Inform 236, 363–374 (IOS Press, 2017). Partl, R. et al 128 SHADES of RED: Objective remote assessment of radiation dermatitis by augmented digital skin imaging. Stud Health Technol Inform 236, 363–374 (IOS Press, 2017).
32.
go back to reference Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton G, Hellings P. Three-dimensional surface imaging and the continuous evolution of preoperative and postoperative assessment in Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg. 2016;32:088–94.CrossRef Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton G, Hellings P. Three-dimensional surface imaging and the continuous evolution of preoperative and postoperative assessment in Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg. 2016;32:088–94.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Lane C, Harrell W. Completing the 3-dimensional picture. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133:612–20.CrossRef Lane C, Harrell W. Completing the 3-dimensional picture. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133:612–20.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Choppin SB, Wheat JS, Gee M, Goyal A. The accuracy of breast volume measurement methods: a systematic review. Breast. 2016;28:121–9.CrossRef Choppin SB, Wheat JS, Gee M, Goyal A. The accuracy of breast volume measurement methods: a systematic review. Breast. 2016;28:121–9.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Wang C, et al. Menstrual cycle-related fluctuations in breast volume measured using three-dimensional imaging: implications for volumetric evaluation in breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2019;43:1–6.CrossRef Wang C, et al. Menstrual cycle-related fluctuations in breast volume measured using three-dimensional imaging: implications for volumetric evaluation in breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2019;43:1–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Three-dimensional surface imaging in breast cancer: a new tool for clinical studies?
Authors
Konstantin Christoph Koban
Lucas Etzel
Zhouxiao Li
Montserrat Pazos
Stephan Schönecker
Claus Belka
Riccardo Enzo Giunta
Thilo Ludwig Schenck
Stefanie Corradini
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01499-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Radiation Oncology 1/2020 Go to the issue