
==== Front
Adv Radiat Oncol
Adv Radiat Oncol
Advances in Radiation Oncology
2452-1094
Elsevier

S2452-1094(24)00146-5
10.1016/j.adro.2024.101583
101583
Scientific Article
Laterality of Radiation Therapy in Breast Cancer is Not Associated With Increased Risk of Coronary Artery Disease in the Contemporary Era
Seth Lakshya BA a
Makram Omar MD, MPH a
Essa Amr MD a
Patel Vraj BS a
Jiang Stephanie BS a
Bhave Aditya BS a
Yerraguntla Sandeep BS a
Gopu Gaurav BS a
Malik Sarah MD a
Swaby Justin BS a
Rast Johnathon MD a
Padgett Caleb A. BS, MS, PhD a
Shetewi Ahmed BS a
Nain Priyanshu MBBS a
Weintraub Neal MD a
Miller Eric D. MD, PhD b
Dent Susan MD c
Barac Ana MD, PhD d
Shiradkar Rakesh PhD e
Madabhushi Anant PhD e
Ferguson Catherine MD f
Guha Avirup MBBS, MPH aguha@augusta.edu
g⁎
a Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia
b Department of Radiation Oncology at the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
c Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
d Division of Cardio-Oncology, Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Virginia
e Wallace H Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
f Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
g Cardio-Oncology Program, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia
⁎ Corresponding author: Avirup Guha, MBBS, MPH aguha@augusta.edu
30 7 2024
10 2024
30 7 2024
9 10 10158319 2 2024
2 7 2024
© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Purpose

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a critical component of breast cancer (BC) therapy. Given the improvement in technology in the contemporary era, we hypothesized that there is no difference in the development of or worsening of existing coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with BC receiving left versus right-sided radiation.

Methods and Materials

For the meta-analysis portion of our study, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus and included studies from January 1999 to September 2022. CAD was identified using a homogenous metric across multiple studies included. We computed the risk ratio (RR) for included studies using a random effects model. For the institutional cohort portion of our study, we selected high cardiovascular-risk patients who received diagnoses of BC between 2010 and 2022 if they met our inclusion criteria. We performed a Cox proportional hazards model with stepwise adjustment.

Results

A pooled random effects model with 9 studies showed that patients with left-sided BC receiving EBRT had a 10% increased risk of CAD when compared with patients with right-sided BC receiving EBRT (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .01). However, subgroup analysis of 6 studies that included patients diagnosed after 1980 did not show a significant difference in CAD based on BC laterality (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.95-1.20; P = .27). For the institutional cohort portion of the study, we found that patients with left-sided BC who received EBRT did not have a significantly higher risk of CAD when compared with their right-sided counterparts (hazard ratios [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.34-1.54; P = .402).

Conclusions

Our study suggests a historical trend of increased CAD in BC patients receiving left-sided EBRT. Data from patients diagnosed after 2010 in our institutional cohort did not show a significant difference, emphasizing that modern EBRT regimens are safe, and laterality of BC does not affect CAD outcomes in the short term after a BC diagnosis.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer diagnosis in women and the second leading cause of cancer death.1 The BC mortality rate has declined by 43% since 1989 because of the increased prevalence of breast screening and advancement in effective available treatments.1 The use of adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in BC treatment has resulted in decreased BC mortality; however, it has also been associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality,2,3 especially in those with pre-existing CV risk factors.4 Research outlining the cardiotoxic effects of EBRT has led to considerable decreases in radiation dosages delivered to the heart in modern regimens. Despite this advancement, mean doses to the heart still range between 2 and 7 Gy, depending on the laterality of BC.5,6 The mean heart dose has been noted to be higher in left-sided BC and that has been associated with increased coronary artery disease (CAD) events in women with left-sided BC.4,7 In order to minimize unintended cardiotoxicity, modern radiation techniques have evolved since the 1980s8 to minimize radiation to the heart without decreasing clinical effectiveness.9 Techniques such as deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and intensity modulated radiation therapy aim to minimize the radiation dose to peripheral organs such as the heart10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 without compromising the radiation dose to the breast19, 20, 21, 22 and have been proven to be effective.

Given the improvement in radiation delivery technology, we hypothesized that there is no difference in the development of/worsening of CAD in patients with BC receiving left versus right-sided radiation. To answer this question, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to include more contemporary data.6,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 There are significant discrepancies in the technology for BC radiation among studies, lack of adjustment for preventive CV care in the current decade, and lack of data regarding mean/median heart dose in the cohort studies we included in the meta-analysis. Thus, we supplemented this meta-analysis with a 10-year single-institution data set between 2010 and 2022 to mitigate these issues.

Methods and Materials

Meta-analysis

Literature study strategy

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.31 We performed the systematic literary search in August of 2022 and encompassed 3 databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search strategy consisted of keywords and standardized MeSH terms as well as Boolean operators (“OR” or “AND”). Keywords included “Right or Left” AND “Coronary Artery Disease OR Ischemic Heart Disease OR Cardiac Events OR Cardiovascular Events OR Morbidity” AND “Radiotherapy” AND “Breast Cancer OR Breast Neoplasms.” No restrictions were used.

Inclusion criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) published in English; (2) women with BC were the study population; (3) reported CAD events comparing left-sided versus right-sided EBRT in patients with BC; (4) CAD was defined using International Classification of Diseases 9th edition codes 410 to 414 or 10th edition codes I20 to I25; (5) the 2 groups being compared were patients with left-sided BC receiving EBRT and patients with right-sided BC receiving EBRT.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Four blinded reviewers participated in the abstract and full-text screenings. Conflicting decisions were resolved by collaboration between 2 reviewers (L.S. and A.E.). For each selected study, the following data were extracted: author's name, year of publication, geographic location, study type, duration of follow-up, type/stage of BC, radiation protocols, adjuvant therapy, risk factors, number of events, and number of patients. The quality of the included studies was determined by 2 reviewers (L.S. and J.S.) using the New Castle Ottawa scale for cohort studies32 (Table E1).

Statistical analysis

A random effects model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% CI. DerSimonian-Laird method was used for estimating between-study variance and fitting the random-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q static and quantified using Higgins I-square statistic.33 Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed graphically through funnel plots and statistically through regression-based Egger test. A sensitivity analysis using trim and fill analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. A forest plot was used to graphically present the RR of each study as well as pooled RR. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS and STATA/MP 17.0 (StataCorp) software were used for statistical analysis.

Institutional data set

Patients were selected sequentially from a cohort of patients who received diagnoses of BC between 2010 and 2022 in our institution where EBRT was used on only one side of the chest. This study was approved by the Augusta University Institutional Review Board.

Inclusion criteria

Patients were included if they met the following criteria:1. Were considered high CV risk prior to treatment based on prior myocardial infarction/stroke or having 3 or more of the following risk factors: age >55 years, hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, tobacco use, and family history of early CV disease. The higher risk cohort was a priori selected because the event rates in lower-risk cohorts are <1% annually making institutional sensitivity analysis not feasible because of the required sample size.34

2. Received diagnoses of unilateral BC after 2010

3. Did not receive diagnoses of another primary malignancy

4. Received EBRT as part of their treatment regimen

5. Had an accurate record of risk factor data including pre-existing conditions and medications before the date of diagnosis

6. Had accurate information regarding the type and stage of BC and detailed information regarding the treatment protocol as defined by radiation dosage information and chemo/endocrine/immunotherapy the patient was receiving.

Data extraction

Nine researchers participated in data extraction and collected pertinent patient information from electronic medical records. For each patient, the following data were extracted: demographic information (name, medical record number, gender, race, date of birth, body mass index [BMI], and age at diagnosis), prior risk factors (history of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack, renal function, CAD, peripheral artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatologic disease, hypothyroidism, and depression), cancer information (date of diagnosis, laterality, stage, ductal, tumor/node/metastasis status, ER/PR/HER2 status, date of chemotherapy, date of radiation therapy, date of hormone therapy, date of immunotherapy, type of radiation, total radiation dose, HER2 agents, and type of surgery), baseline vitals, laboratory tests and imaging at cancer diagnosis (BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, chest computed tomography, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, atrial size, potassium, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine transaminase, creatinine, glucose, hemoglobin, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, A1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high density lipoprotein, and allostatic load) and CAD events (myocardial infarction/ST-elevation myocardial infarction/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina, percutaneous coronary intervention without myocardial infarction, and coronary artery bypass graft) and vitals, laboratory tests, and imaging at the time of first CAD event (BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, chest computed tomography, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, atrial size, potassium, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine transaminase, creatinine, glucose, hemoglobin, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, A1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high density lipoprotein, and allostatic load).

Statistical analysis

The data were presented as absolute values and percentages for categorical variables and as median and IQR for continuous variables. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson's χ2 test. Data distribution assumptions for continuous variables were confirmed using histograms and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, followed by paired samples t test for normally distributed variables and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests for nonnormal distributed variables. To investigate the association between the laterality of BC and CAD, we tested for proportional hazards assumption, then conducted the Cox proportional hazards model with stepwise adjustment and presented the results as hazard ratios (HRs). After presenting the unadjusted model, we adjusted for age and race (model 1). In the subsequent models, we sequentially adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, BMI, smoking status, and chronic kidney disease (model 2), for CAD (model 3), for cancer stage, type of surgery, radiation dose, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and use of HER-2 agents (model 4), and DIBH (model 5 as sensitivity analysis). We additionally conducted a subgroup analysis based on prior CAD versus no prior CAD. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS and STATA/IC 16.1 (StataCorp) software were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Demographics

Meta-analysis

A total of 2301 studies were retrieved from the initial literature search, of which 775 were duplicates and removed. Of the 1526 studies remaining, 42 were included for full-text screening. Of the 42 studies analyzed, 33 were excluded after full-text screening (Fig. 1). A total of 9 studies6,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 were included in the final meta-analysis, involving 118,643 patients (60,947 left-sided and 57,696 right-sided patients) and 6211 CAD events (3347 left-sided events and 2864 right-sided events). Most of the studies analyzed included patients in the age range of 50 to 65 years. Median follow-up time was 11.1 years (Table 1).6,23-30Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram of the meta-analysis of the risk of coronary artery disease events in breast cancer patients receiving left-sided external beam radiation therapy versus right-sided external beam radiation therapy.

Figure 1

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis

Table 1Author	Country	Type of study	Type of breast cancer	No. of patients	Date of breast cancer diagnosis	
Boekel et al,23 2014	Netherlands	Retrospective cohort	Ductal carcinoma in situ	L: 1263
R: 1061	1989-2004	
Borger et al,24 2007	Netherlands	Retrospective cohort	T1-2N0	L: 870
R: 731	1980-1993	
Højris et al,25 1999	Denmark	Retrospective cohort	Nonmetastatic	L: 755
R: 770	1982-1990	
Hooning et al,26 2007	Netherlands	Retrospective cohort	Stage I, II, or IIIa	L: 1837
R: 1725	1970-1986	
McGale et al,6 2011	Denmark/
Sweden	Prospective cohort	All breast cancer diagnoses	L: 17912
R: 16913	1976-2006	
Patt et al,27 2005	United States	Retrospective cohort	In situ, localized or regional stage	L: 8363
R: 7907	1986-1993	
Rehammar et al,28 2017	Denmark	Retrospective cohort	All breast cancer diagnoses	L: 9915
R: 9549	1977-2005	
Wadsten et al,29 2018	Sweden	Retrospective cohort	Ductal carcinoma in situ	L: 1242
R: 1188	
1992-2012	
Wennstig et al,30 2020	Sweden	Retrospective cohort	All invasive breast cancer diagnoses	L: 18790
R: 17852	
1992-2012	

Institutional data set

A total of 2692 patients received diagnoses of BC in our institution between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2022, of whom 1894 patients received EBRT as part of their treatment. Of these, 222 patients with left-sided BC and 245 patients with right-sided BC met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (IQR, 60-72 years) for patients with left-sided BC and 65 years (IQR, 59-72 years) for patients with right-sided BC. The prevalence of hypertension (92.34% vs 90.20%, P = .415), hypercholesterolemia (59.46% vs 58.61%, P = .852), and diabetes (44.59% vs 40.41%, P = .361) was similar in patients with left-sided versus right-sided BC. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (P = .164), or CV mortality (P = .727) based on laterality of BC. The median total radiation dose was 5680 cGy (IQR, 5256-9860 cGy) in patients with left-sided BC and 6040 cGy (IQR, 5256-10,080 cGy) in patients with right-sided BC, with no significant difference in dosage based on laterality of BC (P = .604) (Table 2). The median follow-up time was 2.58 years.Table 2 Baseline characteristics and CAD events from our institutional cohort

Table 2Variables	Patients with left-sided breast cancer (n = 222)	Patients with right-sided breast cancer (n = 245)	P value⁎	
Age at diagnosis, median (IQR), y	65 (60-72)	65 (59-72)	.895	
Ethnicity				
 White	46.40	50.61	.363	
 Black	48.20	46.12	.654	
 Asian	3.15	2.45	.644	
 Hispanic	1.35	0.41	.350†	
BMI at diagnosis, median (IQR), kg/m2	30.8 (27.2, 36.7)	31 (26.45, 38.05)	.821	
Smoking history				
 Current	14.41	18.78	.207	
 Former	16.67	16.33	.921	
 None	68.92	64.90	.357	
Prior health conditions				
 Hypertension	92.34	90.20	.415	
 Diabetes mellitus	44.59	40.41	.361	
 Hypercholesterolemia	59.46	58.61	.852	
 Chronic kidney disease	4.95	5.31	.864	
 Heart failure	4.50	4.08	.822	
 Atrial fibrillation	4.95	3.27	.356	
 Atrial flutter	0.45	0.41	1.000†	
 Myocardial infarction	5.86	6.12	.904	
 Clinical CAD	10.36	12.65	.439	
 PAD	1.35	2.04	.727†	
 CVA/TIA	8.56	6.53	.406	
 COPD	7.66	4.49	.150	
 Rheumatologic disease	13.96	18.78	.162	
 Hypothyroidism	15.32	18.78	.322	
 Depression	13.06	11.89	.700	
Cancer stage				
 Ductal carcinoma in situ	15.77	12.65	.335	
 I	53.15	53.47	.945	
 II	21.62	23.67	.597	
 III	8.11	7.76	.888	
 IV	0.90	1.22	1.000†	
 N/A	0.45	1.22	.625†	
Receptor status				
 ER+	82.43	83.27	.741	
 PR+	79.19	78.78	.950	
 HER2+	15.77	15.92	.935	
Cancer therapy				
 Hormone therapy	69.37	71.84	.567	
 Immunotherapy	11.26	9.80	.594	
 Chemotherapy	35.45	42.04	.146	
 Use of HER-2 agents	14.86	15.51	.832	
Surgery				
 Mastectomy	22.97	20.82	.573	
 Lumpectomy	77.03	78.37	.728	
 None	0.00	0.82	.500†	
Use of DIBH				
 Breath hold	41.44	0.00	<.001†, ⁎	
 Free breath	45.50	86.94	<.001⁎	
 Unknown	13.06	13.06	1.000	
Nodal coverage				
 Tangents	59.00	58.37	.888	
 Comprehensive	6.76	4.08	.200	
 Other‡	23.87	23.27	.877	
 Unknown	10.36	14.29	.199	
Total radiation dose, median (IQR), in cGy	5680 (5256-9860)	6040 (5256-10,080)	.096	
Incidence of CAD events	4.95	7.35	.285	
CAD event				
 Myocardial infarction
NSTEMI
STEMI
Unstable angina	4.05	4.08	.988	
 PCI without MI	0.90	2.04	.454†	
 CABG	0.45	1.22	.625†	
 Death	5.41	2.86	.164	
 CV death	1.35	2.04	.727†	
Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; CABG = coronary artery bypass graft; CAD events = coronary artery disease events; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CV = cardiovascular; CVA = cerebrovascular accident; DIBH = deep inspiration breath hold; MI = myocardial infarction; NSTEMI = non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction; PAD = peripheral artery disease; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; STEMI = ST-elevation myocardial infarction; TIA = transient ischemic attack.

⁎ Signifies a statistically significant p value (p < 0.05).

† A 2-sided Fisher exact test was used to obtain this P value because the χ2 assumption was violated because of fewer than 5 expected counts in >1 cell.

‡ Other is defined as a category comprising patients who in addition to tangential treatment, received radiation to subclavian nodes, posterior axillary boost, or just received partial radiation.

Values are percentages unless noted otherwise.

Outcomes

Meta-analysis

A pooled random effects model of 9 studies showed that patients with left-sided BC receiving EBRT had a 10% increased risk of CAD when compared with patients with right-sided BC receiving EBRT (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .01) (Fig. 2).6,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 A subgroup analysis of 6 studies that included patients who received diagnoses of BC after 1980 did not show a statistically significant difference in CAD based on laterality of BC (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.95-1.20; P = .27) (Fig. 2). Visual inspection of the funnel plot displayed risk for publication bias; hence, a trim and fill approach was used to adjust for the risk (Fig. E1). The trim and fill random effects model added 2 studies and showed an 11% increased risk of CAD in patients with left-sided BC receiving EBRT (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19; P = .002).Figure 2 Forest plot for the risk of coronary artery disease events in patients with breast cancer receiving left-sided external beam radiation therapy versus right-sided external beam radiation therapy.6,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Abbreviations: CAD = coronary artery disease; RR = relative risk.

Figure 2

Institutional data set

The primary outcome of CAD was noted in 4.95% of patients with left-sided BC and 7.35% of patients with right-sided BC, with no significant difference in incidence based on laterality of BC (P = .284) in totality or based on individual CAD event (Table 2). In an unadjusted model, patients with left-sided BC did not have a significantly higher risk for CAD when compared with patients with right-sided BC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.34-1.54; P = .402) (Table 3). Similar results were found in subsequent models, including the fully adjusted model (model 4; adjusted hazards ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.06-3.27; P = .420). Among patients with no prior CAD, an unadjusted model showed that patients with left-sided BC did not have a significantly higher risk for CAD when compared with patients with right-sided BC (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.22-1.95; P = .445) (Table 3). Similar results were found in subsequent models. Among patients with prior CAD, an unadjusted model showed that patients with left-sided BC did not have a significantly higher risk for CAD when compared with patients with right-sided BC (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.35-2.78; P = .980). Similar results were found in subsequent models, including when adjusting for DIBH (Table 3, Table E2).Table 3 Cox proportional hazards model for the outcome of CAD in the entire cohort, those with no prior CAD and those with prior CAD

Table 3				HR (95% CI, P value)		
Outcome	Radiation side	Events/total*	Time at risk (person-months)	Univariable model	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	
All population (n = 467)	
CAD event	Right (n = 245)	29/467	1680.7	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	
	Left (n = 222)			0.73 (0.34-1.54, P = .402)	0.74 (0.35-1.58, P = .435)	0.88 (0.30-2.63, P = .822)	0.98 (0.28-3.43, P = .970)	0.44 (0.06-3.27, P = .420)	
No prior CAD (n = 407)		
CAD event	Right (n = 211)	14/407	1510.17	Reference	Reference	Reference	-	Reference	
	Left (n = 196)			0.65 (0.22-1.95, P = .445)	0.76 (0.25-2.28, P = .624)	0.85 (0.26-2.79, P = .790)	-	0.58 (0.14-2.36, P = .450)	
Prior CAD (n = 60)		
CAD event	Right (n = 34)	15/60	170.57	Reference	Reference	Reference	-	Reference	
	Left (n = 26)			0.99 (0.35-2.78, P = .980)	0.66 (0.20-2.14, P = .485)	0.61 (0.14-2.63, P = .508)	-	0.01 (0.000005–7.43, P = .160)	
Abbreviations: CAD = coronary artery disease.

⁎ Based on the univariable analysis.

Model 1: Adjusted for age and race.

Model 2: Model 1 + diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, body mass index, smoking status, chronic kidney disease.

Model 3: Model 2 + prior CAD.

Model 4: Model 3 + cancer stage, type of surgery, radiation dose, hormone therapy, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, use of HER2.

Discussion

This study used contemporary single-institution data along with an updated meta-analysis to determine CAD outcomes in patients who received EBRT for BC based on laterality. Although our meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with left-sided BC were more likely to develop CAD, a more contemporary subgroup analysis of patients diagnosed after 1980 did not show any association between the laterality of BC and CAD outcomes. Our single institutional cohort containing patients diagnosed after 2010 confirmed this finding while also mitigating the limitations of the meta-analysis. We conclude that modern EBRT does not affect CAD outcomes after a BC diagnosis in the short term, even among those with prior CAD.

Our study contributes to the rapidly evolving field of cardio-oncology, which aims to investigate the CV risk associated with cancer therapies and implement treatment strategies to minimize this risk in patients with cancer The findings from this study provide an updated analysis of modern radiation techniques demonstrating no difference in CAD in patients with left-sided versus right-sided BC. Literature in the field has shown that modern radiation techniques such as DIBH and intensity modulated radiation therapy along with the utilization of CT-guided treatment regimens35 have allowed for a more targeted organ approach and have spared the delivery of high doses of radiation to the heart.8,36 Findings from our institutional cohort reflect these advances, because we found that in the contemporary era, there is no difference in total radiation dose based on the laterality of treatment, which has translated into no difference in risk of CAD based on laterality of EBRT in BC therapy.

Over the past decade, there has been increased emphasis on preventative CV care in patients with cancer receiving cardiotoxic therapy. Prominent international organizations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Heart Association, European Society for Medical Oncology, and the European Society of Cardiology have all released recommendations advising screening for CV risk factors prior to initiation of cancer therapy and continued surveillance for CV events during and following completion of treatment.37, 38, 39, 40 Multidisciplinary cancer care has been established as an essential part of cancer care41,42 since 199542 and has given rise to the rapidly growing field of cardio-oncology.43,44 International guidelines outlining the cardiotoxic effects of cancer therapy37, 38, 39, 40 as well as the increased number of cancer survivors37, 38, 39,45 has led to research outlining the key role of cardio-oncology services43,45, 46, 47 in managing the CV needs of patients currently receiving cancer treatment. By designing our cohort to include patients who received diagnoses of BC after 2010, we aimed to assess whether the increased implementation of preventive care has had a positive effect on CV outcomes. Although the meta-analysis portion of our study and other meta-analyses48,49 that include patients who received diagnoses of BC in the late 20th century have found an increased CV risk in patients with left-sided BC receiving EBRT, our updated institutional cohort found that in the contemporary era, no such difference in risk occurs. Regardless of the findings of this study, it is evident that real-world patients with BC receiving EBRT have a high burden of CV risk factors and would benefit from cardio-oncology screening and management as per guidelines.40,50

This meta-analysis had several limitations. First, the data were based on observational studies rather than randomized control trials. Because the observational data were sourced from country-wide databases, individual patient data were difficult to obtain. Additionally, individual radiation dose information was not available; hence, we could not investigate whether the difference in incidence of CAD events was because of increased radiation dose in left-sided BCs. These limitations are partly offset by the inclusion of the institutional data set. Using this data set allowed us to analyze individual patient information such as demographic information, prior health conditions, cancer information, and radiation information. Additionally, we were able to filter this institutional data set to only include patients diagnosed after 2010 to accurately reflect advances in modern EBRT regimens and implementation of preventative CV care in patients with cancer and analyze its subsequent effect on CAD events. Limitations of the institutional data set include incomplete or unavailable patient information and inconsistent follow-up for some patients. Additionally, our follow-up time was 2.58 years, limiting our ability to draw conclusions about the long-term cardiac effects of radiation.

Conclusion

Our study suggests a historical trend of increased CAD in BC patients receiving left-sided EBRT. However, data from patients diagnosed after 2010 within our institutional cohort did not show a significant difference, emphasizing the potential of modern EBRT regimens, particularly DIBH, to offer a safer alternative. Notably, our findings suggest that the laterality of BC does not significantly affect CAD outcomes in the short term after a BC diagnosis.

Appendix Supplementary materials

Supplementary Figures Laterality BC Project

Image, application 1

Disclosures

Avirup Guha reports a relationship with the American Heart Association that includes: funding grants. Avirup Guha reports a relationship with the Department of Defense that includes: funding grants. Avirup Guha reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: consulting or advisory. Avirup Guha reports a relationship with Novartis that includes: consulting or advisory. Avirup Guha reports a relationship with Myovant Sciences Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Avirup Guha reports – leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid – ZERO Prostate Cancer – health equity task force. Susan Dent reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory. Susan Dent reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: consulting or advisory. Susan Dent reports a relationship with Gilead Sciences Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Susan Dent reports a relationship with Novartis that includes: consulting or advisory. Ana Barac reports a relationship with CTI BioPharma Corp that includes: board membership. Neal Weintraub reports a relationship with the American Heart Association that includes: travel reimbursement. Rakesh Shiradkar reports a relationship with the Department of Defense that includes: funding grants. Rakesh Shiradkar reports a relationship with Emory University Winship Cancer Institute that includes: funding grants. Rakesh Shiradkar reports a relationship with the National Institutes of Health that includes: funding grants. Anant Madabhushi reports a relationship with Aiforia Inc that includes: consulting fees. Anant Madabhushi reports a relationship with SinbioSys Inc that includes: consulting fees. Anant Madabhushi reports a relationship with Takeda Inc that includes: consulting fees. Anant Madabhushi reports a relationship with Elucid Bioimaging that includes: equity and stock ownership. Anant Madabhushi reports a relationship with Inspirata Inc that includes: equity and stock ownership. Anant Madabhushi reports a relationship with Picture Health that includes: board membership and equity and stock ownership. The other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Omar Makram performed the statistical analysis.

Sources of support: A.G. is supported by the American Heart Association-Strategically Focused Research Network Grant in Disparities in Cardio-Oncology (#847740, #863620 ) and Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program's Physician Research Award (#HT94252310158 ).

Institutional data may be available to interested researchers based on a data use agreement.

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.adro.2024.101583.
==== Refs
References

1 Siegel RL Miller KD Wagle NS Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023 CA Cancer J Clin 73 2023 17 48 36633525
2 Andratschke N Maurer J Molls M Trott KR. Late radiation-induced heart disease after radiotherapy. Clinical importance, radiobiological mechanisms and strategies of prevention Radiother Oncol 100 2011 160 166 20826032
3 Bouillon K Haddy N Delaloge S Long-term cardiovascular mortality after radiotherapy for breast cancer J Am Coll Cardiol 57 2011 445 452 21251585
4 Darby SC Ewertz M McGale P Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer N Engl J Med 368 2013 987 998 23484825
5 Drost L Yee C Lam H A systematic review of heart dose in breast radiotherapy Clin Breast Cancer 18 2018 e819 e824 29980429
6 McGale P Darby SC Hall P Incidence of heart disease in 35,000 women treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer in Denmark and Sweden Radiother Oncol 100 2011 167 175 21752480
7 Taylor CW Wang Z Macaulay E Jagsi R Duane F Darby SC Exposure of the heart in breast cancer radiation therapy: A systematic review of heart doses published during 2003 to 2013 Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 93 2015 845 853 26530753
8 Boyages J Baker L. Evolution of radiotherapy techniques in breast conservation treatment Gland Surg 7 2018 576 595 30687630
9 Nikovia V Chinis E Gkantaifi A Current cardioprotective strategies for the prevention of radiation-induced cardiotoxicity in left-sided breast cancer patients J Pers Med 13 2023 1038 37511651
10 Stowe HB Andruska ND Reynoso F Thomas M Bergom C. Heart sparing radiotherapy techniques in breast cancer: A focus on deep inspiration breath hold Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 14 2022 175 186 35899145
11 Ferdinand S Mondal M Mallik S Dosimetric analysis of deep inspiratory breath-hold technique (DIBH) in left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy and evaluation of pre-treatment predictors of cardiac doses for guiding patient selection for DIBH Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 17 2021 25 31 33681484
12 Tang L Ishikawa Y Ito K Yamamoto T Umezawa R Jingu K. Evaluation of DIBH and VMAT in hypofractionated radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancers after breast-conserving surgery: A planning study Technol Cancer Res Treat 20 2021 15330338211048706
13 Ferini G Molino L Tripoli A Anatomical predictors of dosimetric advantages for deep-inspiration-breath-hold 3D-conformal radiotherapy among women with left breast cancer Anticancer Res 41 2021 1529 1538 33788746
14 Nguyen PL Alibhai SMH Basaria S Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them Eur Urol 67 2015 825 836 25097095
15 Sakyanun P Saksornchai K Nantavithya C Chakkabat C Shotelersuk K. The effect of deep inspiration breath-hold technique on left anterior descending coronary artery and heart dose in left breast irradiation Radiat Oncol J 38 2020 181 188 33012146
16 Beckham WA Popescu CC Patenaude VV Wai ES Olivotto IA. Is multibeam IMRT better than standard treatment for patients with left-sided breast cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69 2007 918 924 17889273
17 Rudat V Alaradi AA Mohamed A Ai-Yahya K Altuwaijri S Tangential beam IMRT versus tangential beam 3D-CRT of the chest wall in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: A dosimetric comparison Radiat Oncol 6 2011 26 21418616
18 Li JS Freedman GM Price R Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated tangential beam irradiation for breast cancer Med Phys 31 2004 1023 1031 15191288
19 Huang XB Jiang GL Chen JY Chen LF Hu WG [Dosimetric evaluation of intensity-modulated tangential beam versus conventional tangential irradiation for breast cancer] Ai Zheng Aizheng Chin J Cancer 25 2006 855 860 [in Chinese]
20 Rice L Goldsmith C Green MM Cleator S Price PM. An effective deep-inspiration breath-hold radiotherapy technique for left-breast cancer: Impact of post-mastectomy treatment, nodal coverage, and dose schedule on organs at risk Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 9 2017 437 446 28652810
21 Bergom C Currey A Desai N Tai A Strauss JB. Deep inspiration breath hold: Techniques and advantages for cardiac sparing during breast cancer irradiation Front Oncol 8 2018 87 29670854
22 Latty D Stuart KE Wang W Ahern V. Review of deep inspiration breath-hold techniques for the treatment of breast cancer J Med Radiat Sci 62 2015 74 81 26229670
23 Boekel NB Schaapveld M Gietema JA Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast J Natl Cancer Inst 106 2014 dju156 25128694
24 Borger JH Hooning MJ Boersma LJ Cardiotoxic effects of tangential breast irradiation in early breast cancer patients: The role of irradiated heart volume Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69 2007 1131 1138 17606332
25 Højris I Overgaard M Christensen JJ Overgaard J. Radiotherapy Committee of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Morbidity and mortality of ischaemic heart disease in high-risk breast-cancer patients after adjuvant postmastectomy systemic treatment with or without radiotherapy: Analysis of DBCG 82b and 82c randomised trials Lancet 354 1999 1425 1430 10543669
26 Hooning MJ Botma A Aleman BMP Long-term risk of cardiovascular disease in 10-year survivors of breast cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 99 2007 365 375 17341728
27 Patt DA Goodwin JS Kuo YF Cardiac morbidity of adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer J Clin Oncol 23 2005 7475 7482 16157933
28 Rehammar JC Jensen MB McGale P Risk of heart disease in relation to radiotherapy and chemotherapy with anthracyclines among 19,464 breast cancer patients in Denmark, 1977-2005 Radiother Oncol 123 2017 299 305 28365142
29 Wadsten C Wennstig AK Garmo H Risk of ischemic heart disease after radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ Breast Cancer Res Treat 171 2018 95 101 29730730
30 Wennstig AK Wadsten C Garmo H Long-term risk of ischemic heart disease after adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer: Results from a large population-based cohort Breast Cancer Res 22 2020 10 31969169
31 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 372 2021 n71 33782057
32 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Accessed December 28, 2023. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
33 Higgins JPT Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis Stat Med 21 2002 1539 1558 12111919
34 Guha A Fradley MG Dent SF Incidence, risk factors, and mortality of atrial fibrillation in breast cancer: A SEER-Medicare analysis Eur Heart J 43 2022 300 312 34791123
35 Purdy JA. 3D treatment planning and intensity-modulated radiation therapy Oncology (Williston Park) 13 1999 155 168 10550841
36 Shah C Al-Hilli Z Vicini F. Advances in breast cancer radiotherapy: Implications for current and future practice JCO Oncol Pract 17 2021 697 706 34652952
37 Armenian SH Lacchetti C Barac A Prevention and monitoring of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline J Clin Oncol 35 2017 893 911 27918725
38 Curigliano G Lenihan D Fradley M Management of cardiac disease in cancer patients throughout oncological treatment: ESMO consensus recommendations Ann Oncol 31 2020 171 190 31959335
39 Mehta LS Watson KE Barac A Cardiovascular disease and breast cancer: where these entities intersect: a Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Circulation 137 2018 e30 e66 29437116
40 Lyon AR López-Fernández T Couch LS 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardio-oncology developed in collaboration with the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS): Developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J 43 2022 4229 4361 36017568
41 European Partnership Action Against Cancer consensus groupBorras JM Albreht T Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care Eur J Cancer 50 2014 475 480 24321260
42 Selby P Popescu R Lawler M Butcher H Costa A. The value and future developments of multidisciplinary team cancer care Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 39 2019 332 340 31099640
43 Barac A Murtagh G Carver JR Cardiovascular health of patients with cancer and cancer survivors: A Roadmap to the Next Level J Am Coll Cardiol 65 2015 2739 2746 26112199
44 Shi S Lv J Chai R Opportunities and challenges in cardio-oncology: A bibliometric analysis from 2010 to 2022 Curr Probl Cardiol 48 2023 101227
45 Curigliano G Cardinale D Dent S Cardiotoxicity of anticancer treatments: Epidemiology, detection, and management CA Cancer J Clin 66 2016 309 325 26919165
46 Lancellotti P Suter TM López-Fernández T Cardio-oncology services: Rationale, organization, and implementation Eur Heart J 40 2019 1756 1763 30085070
47 Albini A Pennesi G Donatelli F Cammarota R De Flora S Noonan DM. Cardiotoxicity of anticancer drugs: The need for cardio-oncology and cardio-oncological prevention J Natl Cancer Inst 102 2010 14 25 20007921
48 Sardar P Kundu A Chatterjee S Long-term cardiovascular mortality after radiotherapy for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Cardiol 40 2017 73 81 28244595
49 Haque W Verma V Haque A Butler EB Teh BS. Trends in cardiac mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ Breast Cancer Res Treat 161 2017 345 351 27858317
50 Denlinger CS Sanft T Moslehi JJ 2020. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship. version 2.2020 J Natl Compr Canc Netw 18 2020 1016 1023 32755975
