Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. doi: 10.2478/raon-2024-0059 535 research article Impact of right-sided breast cancer adjuvant radiotherapy on the liver Gonca Hanedan Uslu1, Filiz Taşçı2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, İstinye University, Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey 2 Department of Radiology, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Faculty of Medicine, Rize, Turkey Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Received 6 August 2024 Accepted 17 September 2024 Correspondence to: Assoc. Prof. Gonca Hanedan Uslu, M.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, İstinye University, Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey. E-mail: goncadilek.hanedanuslu@isu.edu.tr Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Background. In patients with right-sided breast cancer the liver can be partially irradiated during adjuvant radio- therapy (RT). We aimed to determine breast cancer RT effects on liver using with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and biological results. Patients and methods. This retrospective study enrolled 34 patients diagnosed with right-sided breast cancer who underwent adjuvant RT. Liver segment assessments were conducted using MRE for all participants. Additionally, a complete blood count and liver enzyme analysis were performed for each patient. All measurements were taken both prior to the initiation and upon completion of RT. Results. A statistically significant difference was found in ALT (p = 0.015), ALP (p = 0.026), total protein (p = 0.037), and albumin (p = 0.004) levels before and after RT. The highest mean liver stiffness (kPa) value was recorded in seg- ment 8, while the lowest was observed in segment 6. A weak but statistically significant positive correlation was found between segment 5 stiffness and liver volume (p = 0.039). Additionally, a statistically significant positive correlation was detected between ALP levels and the stiffness values in segment 4A (p = 0.020) and segment 6 (p = 0.003). Conversely, a weak negative correlation was observed between the stiffness values in segment 8 and post-RT total protein levels (p = 0.031). Conclusions. MRE can help us identify the level of fibrotic stiffness in the liver segments within the RT area without establishing clinical symptoms. MRE can support the clinician in evaluating the liver functions of right breast cancer patients who underwent RT. We assume these results will facilitate new studies with a large number of patients on MRE imaging at certain intervals in the follow-up of patients with right breast cancer who received RT before the develop- ment of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD). Key words: radiotherapy; right -sided breast cancer; magnetic resonance elastography; radiation-induced liver dis- ease; liver fibrosis Introduction Radiotherapy (RT) is a crucial component of breast cancer treatment due to its ability to achieve lo- cal-regional cancer control and improve survival outcomes. However, certain side effects of RT may sometimes surpass the disease-related issues themselves, becoming primary determinant of pa- tient survival.1 In conventional radiotherapy techniques, it is often impossible to completely protect nearby healthy organs adjacent to the irradiated volume. The more space occupied by organs with rela- tively low resistance to radiotherapy − referred to as “critical organs” − within the treatment area, the more severe the side effects tend to become.2 Critical organs include the liver and kidneys dur- ing abdominal irradiation, the intestines during Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver536 pelvic irradiation, and the lenses during brain ir- radiation.3,4 In recent years, efforts have been made to miti- gate the adverse patient outcomes associated with radiotherapy, especially to minimize the late side effects in left-sided breast cancer. Techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) are some of them. The use of these techniques has become widespread in the treatment of left-sided breast cancer, and their use for right-sided breast cancer is also recommended.5,6 Due to its anatomical location, the liver may be partially irradiated during adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with right-sided breast cancer.7 The tolerable dose for a healthy liver is generally con- sidered to be 30 Gy. Radiation-induced liver dis- ease (RILD) is defined in tissue exposed to doses exceeding 30–35 Gy.8 Therefore, liver dose restric- tions are in place and are essential during abdomi- nal radiotherapy, yet the liver is not typically re- garded as an organ at risk (OAR) in breast cancer.9 The extent of liver damage due to irradiation can only be detected through radiological imag- ing techniques such as abdominal CT, ultrasound, or MRI unless clinical symptoms are present. In recent years, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) has been increasingly used to diagnose liver diseases early. The liver MRE technique has been well described.10 MRE is a noninvasive tech- nique for staging liver fibrosis with excellent re- producibility.11 The European and American Liver Research Associations recommend using transient elastography performed with Fibroscan® to detect liver fibrosis in patients with suspected nonalco- holic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).7 A reliable, re- producible, non-invasive method was an unmet need to evaluate liver fibrosis. Beginning to elu- cidate the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis at the molecular level has made it possible to use serum markers for diagnosis. However, there is a need for another tool that will support the relationship be- tween serum markers and histology and/or reflect histology more. Today, the best method to meet this need is transient elastography. Fibroscan® is a high-tech device that numerically measures the elasticity of soft tissues with this principle. MRE could be leveraged as a diagnostic tool for evaluat- ing chronic liver diseases to assess hepatic fibro- sis. It can detect a larger portion of the liver with very good resolution in contrast with liver biopsy assessment. Additionally, MRE could be utilized as an imaging method for identifying liver fibro- sis that correlates well with liver biopsy in several chronic liver diseases and NAFLD. MRE has also been shown to be superior to other noninvasive methods in assessing liver fibrosis.12 The risk of developing classic RILD is 5% to 35% when the en- tire liver is irradiated with 30 to 35 Gy.13 MRE is a noninvasive technique for staging liver fibrosis with excellent reproducibility. According to data obtained from previous study, liver stiffness (LS) ≤ 3 kPa is considered normal, and LS > 3 kPa is con- sidered compatible with fibrosis.14 MRE is a better method for diagnosing and staging liver fibrosis as it is not influenced by factors such as obesity, ascites, inflammation, or etiology.15 The accuracy and reliability of MRE in diagnosing all stages of liver fibrosis, especially late-stage fibrosis and cir- rhosis, have been confirmed by meta-analyses.16 Currently, there is limited information available regarding the late-stage effects of RT on liver func- tion in breast cancer patients. The primary aim of this study was to assess the effects of adjuvant ra- diotherapy on the liver in patients with right-sided breast cancer. The secondary objective was to ex- amine the relationship between MRE findings and biological markers in determining the extent of liver involvement due to radiotherapy. Patients and methods Study population This retrospective and descriptive study carried out in the radiation oncology clinic of a university hospital. To work; patients with primary right -sid- ed breast cancer who had abdominal MRE exami- nations within at least three months after comple- tion of RT were selected. Patients with liver disease, patients using drugs that could damage the liver other than standard drugs used in breast cancer treatment, and patients with liver function tests (LFT) values outside the reference range before RT were not included in the study. The files of 167 pa- tients, whose adjuvant RT was completed within one year and who were admitted to the hospital for their final follow-up, were examined retrospective- ly, and the study was completed with 34 patients who met the sample acceptance criteria. Ethical consideration All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and na- tional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. Ethics committee approval has Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver 537 been granted from our institution with protocol number (2023/111, date 27.04.2023). Radiotherapy The RT plans of all patients with breast cancer were made with the same technique and dose in our clinic. Varian R brand 13.6 version Eclipse con- touring system using simulation tomographies were taken on a ToshibaR Aqullion LB model, 80 cm wide CT simulator device. Radiotherapy for all patients was planned according to standard ESTRO guidelines. After the official publication, the breast/chest wall and lymph node clinical tar- get volumes (CTV) were delineated according to ESTRO guidelines. The planning target volüme (PTV) was cropped 2–3 mm under the skin. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions (2 Gy/ fraction) to the breast/chest wall and/or lymph nodes. When a breast with boost was indicated, it was delivered sequentially at 10–16 Gy doses in 5-8 fractions. The objective was the homogenous cover of 95% of the PTV by >95% isodoses. Fifty consecu- tive treatment plans to the breast or chest wall with lymph node irradiation were used to calcu- late dose-volume histogram (DVH) values for each OAR (medullaspinalis, heart, ipsilateral-contralat- eral lung, contralateral breast, and liver). These dose values were classified in increasing order and divided into four quartiles. For all new treatment plans, the lower than Q2 dose constraint is now ap- plied to each organ-at-risk to obtain optimal and sufficient beam intensity modulation to comply with clinical constraints. These dose constraints aimed to decrease the doses of OAR in patients with complex anatomy and/or irradiation volumes. Radiotherapy dose information (PTV volume, PTV mean, PTV max, liver volume, liver V30 Gy, liver mean) was recorded. Data collection Liver function tests and radiological imaging re- sults of the patients were collected from hospital records, and radiotherapy treatment dose infor- mation and liver dose information were collected from the radiation oncology clinic data archive. Biological hepatic function assessment These tests are performed periodically in the hos- pital according to patient monitoring protocols. To evaluate liver functions, ALT, AST, GGT, LDH, TABLE 1. Patients characteristics (N = 34) Characteristics Age, years Mean ± SD (min-max)52.53± 9.38 (32-68) N(%) Smoking No 10 (29.4) Yes 24 (70.6) Alcohol No 34 (100) NAC Yes 15(44.1) No 19(55.9) Surgery BCS 21(61.8) MRM 13(38.2) Stage 1A 10(29.4) 2A 14(41.2) 2B 3(8.8) 3A 7(20.6) Histopathological IDC 31(91.2) ILC 1(2.9) IMC 1(2.9) ITC 1(2.9) BCS = breast-conserving surgery; IDC = invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC = invasive lobular carcinoma; IMC = invasive medullar carcinoma; ITC = invasive tubuler carcinoma; MRM = modified radical mastectomy; NAC = neoadjuvant chemotherapy; RT = radiotherapy TABLE 2. Dosimetric date Characteristics Value (range) RT dose (Gy) 60.0 (50-67) PTV volume (cc) 1063.35 (372.6-2389.6) PTV max (cGy) 6282.4 (5323.8-7050.9) Liver volüme (cc) 1436.1 (843.8-2298.1) Liver V30Gy (%) 1.7 (0-12.03) Liver mean (cGy) 759.6 (133.8-1699.8) RT = radiotherapy; PTV = planing target volume Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver538 TABLE 3. Comparison of before and after radiotherapy (RT) blood parameters Before RT After RT Test statistics p-value Mean ± SD Median (min - max) Mean ± SD Median (min - max) ALP 79.44 ± 34.28 71,5 (33-202) 90.5 ± 53.19 82.0 (39-357) Z = -2.232 0.026 ALT 24.84 ± 12.95 21.0 (8-62) 20.26 ± 1.,89 17.0 (8-63) Z = -2.423 0.015 AST 23.21 ± 7.88 21.0 (13-48) 24.32 ± 12.51 21.0 (13-74) Z = -0.089 0.929 GGT 35.42 ± 34.08 23.0 (7-160) 33.56 ± 30.68 24.0 (12-170) Z = -0.241 0.809 LDH 228.14 ± 64.71 224.5 (108-401) 216.85 ± 45.95 210.5 (140-310) t = 0.968 0.340 Total protein 71.15 ± 4.88 71.0 (51-80) 72.94 ± 3.25 72.65 (64.8-79) Z = -2.082 0.037 Albumin 41.91 ± 2.21 42.0 (38-45) 43.36 ± 2.87 43.05 (35.6-48.7) t = -3.12 0.004 Total bilirubin 0.52 ± 0.26 0.48 (0.11-1.3) 0.51 ± 0.29 0.46 (0.19-1.9) Z= -0.128 0.898 ALP = alkaline phosphatase; ALT = alanine transaminase; AST = aspartate transaminase; GGT = gamma gulutamil transpeptida; LDH = lactat dehidrogenes; Z = Wilcoxon Tes; t = Paired Two Sample t Test TABLE 4. Distribution of kPa values in liver segments and stages (distribution of each response) Segment (Grade) n(%) Segment-2 1 13 (38.2) 2 14 (41.1) 3 1 (2.9) N 6 (17.6) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 14 (41.1) Segment 4a 1 13 (38.2) 2 20 (58.8) 3 11 (32.3) 4 2 (5.8) N 6 (17.6) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 3 (8.8) Segment 8 1 9 (26.4) 2 14 (41.1) 3 12 (35.2) 4 7 (20.5) N 4 (11.7) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 4 (11.7) Segment 7 1 2 (5.8) 2 2 (5.8) Segment (Grade) n(%) N 19 (55.8) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 13 (38.2) Segment 3 1 4 (11.7) 2 4 (11.7) N 16 (47.0) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 14 (41.1) Segment 4b 1 8 (23.5) 2 9 (26.4) 3 1 (2.9) N 17 (50.0) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 8 (23.5) Segment 5 1 7 (20.5) 2 7 (20.5) N 15 (44.1) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 12 (35.2) Segment 6 1 1 (2.9) 2 1 (2.9) N 19 (55.8) N~ or Chronic Inflammation 14 (41.1) N = normal Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver 539 ALP, Total Protein, Albumin and T. Bilirubin re- sults were evaluated. The data of the patients be- fore the treatment and at least 3 months after the end of the treatment were evaluated. Radiologic imaging The effect of RT on the liver was evaluated with MRE.The majority of liver MREs were performed with Discovery 750-Watt MR imaging device (GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL) as a treatment position MR imaging for radiation planning. The liver MRE technique has been well described. Four axial slic- es were obtained through the largest cross-section of the liver. Mean liver parenchyma stiffness was calculated by averaging across manually drawn regions of interest, including only liver paren- chyma, and measured by the reading radiologist. MRE results were evaluated by the second author, a radiologist. Based on previous study, LS ≤ 3 kPa was considered normal, and LS > 3 kPa was con- sistent with fibrosis.6 Patients’ liver stiffness meas- urement (LSM) was obtained using the W General Review program on the AW Server system. This method measured all liver segments in kilopascals (kPa) by drawing 1 cm or more from the liver edge using the free region of interest (ROI) tool to obtain measurements. Both qualitative and quantitative measurements were made. All segment measure- ments were made in size images that provide the best anatomical detail of the liver, avoiding the liver edge (≥1 cm from the liver edge), extra-he- patic tissues, fissures, gallbladder fossa, and large blood vessels. Values <2.5 kPa Normal, 2.5–2.9 kPa Normal or inflammation, 2.9–3.5 kPa grade 1–2 fi- brosis, 3.5–4 kPa grade 2–3 fibrosis, 4–5 kPa Grade 4–5 fibrosis was considered compatible with > 5 kPa 5 fibrosis or cirrhosis. Steatosis was measured by the CAP method, expressed in decibels per meter (dB/m), and fibrosis was determined by the TE, expressed in kilopascals (kPa). All fibrosis and steatosis measurements were conducted with the Fibroscan® 530 Echosens device. Measurements were taken by placing the elastography probe on the right lobe of the liver from the intercostal space (mid-axillary line, between the 9th and 11th intercostal spaces) while the patient was lying in the dorsal decubitus position with his right arm in maximum abduction. The probe used (M or XL) was selected by the automatic recommendation software on the FibroScan® machine. Elastography CAP values were classified between S0–S3 based on Petroff’s scale, and elasticity (fibrosis) values were classified between F0–F4 based on Eddowes’ scale.17,18 Elastography was performed during ab- dominal MRI examinations at the patients’ last clinical follow-up. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS V23. Compliance with normal distribution was exam- ined with the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Independent Samples t-test, A paired Two-Sample t-test and Pearson Correlation Coefficient compared data with normal distribution according to binary groups. Mann Whitney U Test, Wilcoxon Test and Spearman’s rho Correlation Coefficient was used for data that did not comply with normal distri- bution. Analysis results were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and median (minimum– maximum). The significance level was taken as p < 0.050. Results The female population consisted of included 34 patients, with a median age 52.5 years (range, 32 to 68 years). Table 1 summarizes patients clinical characteristics and table 2 dosimetric data. FİGURE 1. A 46-year-old female patient with a history of breast cancer and undergoing with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). (A) Liver distribution of radiotherapy (RT) dose (1000cGy) applied to breast; (B) T2 Weighted image; (C) Segment-2; (D) Segment-4A; (E) Segment-8; (F) Liver MR elastography examination from Segment-7 Elastogram measurements obtained during. When drawing the OAR, non-parenchymal structures (i.e., large vessels, bile ducts, gallbladder) that would affect the measurement were avoided. The color elastogram with a scale of 0–8 kPa shows the stiffness distribution in organs for qualitative evaluation. Orange or red regions have higher hardness values, and blue and purple regions have lower hardness values. Measured as segment-2 (3.06 Kpa), segment-4A (2.709 kPA), segment-8 (1.834 kPA), segment-7 (2.825 kPA). In the measurement made from liver segment-2, Stage 1–2 fibrosis was found. Segment-7 was normal or compatible with chronic inflammation, and the other segments were normal. A B C D E F Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver540 We found a statistically significant difference in the before and after RT measurements of ALT (p = 0.015), ALP (p = 0.026), total protein (p = 0.037) and albumin (p = 0.004) (Table 3). While the ALP, total protein and albumin values of the patients increased after radiotherapy; we determined that the ALT value decreased. The mean kPa value for liver highest value seg- ment-8 was 3.5 (range 2–5.79); the lowest value in segment-6 was 2.3 (range 1.42–3.01) (Figure 3). kPa stage rates and distributions in liver segments are shown in Table 4. The most frequent stage ob- served in segment-4A was 1 (38.2%) and 2 (58.8%), while in segment-8, the most common stage was 1 (26.4%) and 2 (41.1%). Also in Figures 1 and 2, ex- amples of RT dose distributions and liver MRE im- ages of two patients are shown. Table 5 shows the relationship between kPa val- ues, liver volumes, liver V30Gy and liver mean in liver segments. A weak positive correlation was found between the measurements in segment-5 and liver volume (r = 0.355; p = 0.039). Moreover, a weak but statistically significant positive correla- tion was observed between Segment-4A (r = 0.398; p = 0.020) and Segment-6 (r = 0.500; p = 0.003) val- ues with ALP levels. Conversely, a weak negative correlation (r = -0.370; p = 0.031) was identified be- tween T.PRO levels and Segment-8 values post-RT (Table 6.) The liver volume median was 1566.6cc (range 1014–2123,5) in those with breast-conserving sur- gery (BCS) and 1290.6 cc (range 843,8–2298,1) in those with modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No statistically significant difference in the me- dian V30Gy liver volume according to surgery (p > 0.05) has been achieved. The median V30Gy value was 1.9 cc in patients with BCS and 1.4 cc in patients with MRM. There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.025) between the mean liver volume according to surgery (Table 7). Discussion This study aimed to examine the right breast RT effect to the liver with non-invasive advanced MRE measurements and biochemical values. One of the most important aspects could be elaborated as the limited number of MRE devices in our coun- try and the importance of data. FİGURE 2. A 46-year-old female patient with a history of breast cancer who underwent modified radical mastectomy(MRM). (A) Liver distribution of RT dose (1000cGy) applied to chest wall location; (B) T2 Weighted image; (C) Segment-2; (D) Segment-4A; (E) Segment-8; (F) Liver MRE examination from segment-7 Elastogram measurements obtained during. When drawing the OAR, nonparenchymal structures (i.e., large vessels, bile ducts, gallbladder) that would affect the measurement were avoided. The color elastogram with a scale of 0-8 kPa shows the stiffness distribution in organs for qualitative evaluation. Orange or red regions have higher hardness values, and blue and purple regions have lower hardness values. Measured as segment-2 (3.44 Kpa), segment-4A (3.219 kPA), segment-8 (5.930 kPA), segment-7 (3.449 kPA). The measurement made from liver segment-2,-4A,-7 was found to be compatible with Stage 1–2 fibrosis, and the measurement from segment-8 was found to be compatible withs Stage 4 fibrosis. TABLE 5. Relationship between kPa values and liver volume in liver segments Liver segments (kPA values) Liver volüme (cc) Liver V 30Gy Liver mean (Gy) Segment 2 r = 0.109; p = 0.539 r = 0.089; p = 0.616 r = 0.171; p = 0.332 Segment 4A r = 0.239; p = 0.173* r = 0.088; p = 0.619 r = -0.014; p = 0.938* Segment 8 r = 0.107; p = 0.548* r = -0.043; p = 0.809 r = -0.144; p = 0.417* Segment 7 r = 0.266; p = 0.129 r = -0.139; p = 0.432 r = -0.115; p = 0.517 Segment 3 r = -0.068; p = 0.701* r = -0.057; p = 0.749 r = -0.188; p = 0.286* Segment 4B r = 0.284; p = 0.103* r = 0.224; p = 0.203 r = 0.186; p = 0.293* Segment 5 r = 0.355; p = 0.039 r = -0.074; p = 0.679 r = -0.074; p = 0.677 Segment 6 r = 0.062; p = 0.729* r = 0.073; p = 0.683 r = 0.017; p = 0.926* R = Spearman’s rho Correlation Coefficient; r* = Pearson Correlation Coefficient A B C D E F Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver 541 The liver is a sensitive organ to radiation. During ionizing radiation therapy, radiotoxicity usually accumulates in the normal tissues around the tumor, resulting in 24.7% of patients develop- ing varying degrees of RILD.19 RILD is a form of subacute liver injury caused by RT. Radiation dos- es of 50–70 Gy are considered to be effective for controlling most solid malignant tumors; however, approximately 5–10% of patients develop classic RILD when their whole liver is exposed to the cu- mulative dose of 30–35 Gy.20 A dose of 2 Gy/day infractionated irradiation as cancer radiotherapy is sufficient to cause RILD. Patients ALP, total pro- tein, and albumin levels increased after RT. An elevation of ALP is associated with the classical RILD.21 On the contrary, AST, GGT, LDH, and total bilirubin levels were not affected by radiotherapy in our study. Liver segments 8 and 4 are the anatomical re- gions closest to the right breast RT region. In this study, we determined the segment with the highest kPa value. It may pose a risk for the development of RLID. During right breast radiotherapy, some spe- cific segments of the liver had been affected more than others. Stage 2 was highest in segments-4A (58.82%) and 8 (41.18%), and the most common stage was 1–2 in segments-4A (38.2%) and segment-8 as 26.5%. Only there was a relationship between seg- ment five measurements and liver volume values. RILD is a multi-stage, multi-step dynamic process. It links a range of responses through a complex cascade response network in which various RNAs, oxidative stress, inflammation, aging, fibrosis, and immune responses interact under the regulation of multiple signaling pathways. Alleviating tissue TABLE 6. Relationship between after-RT segment values and liver RT dose and biochemical variables Segment 2 Segment 4A Segment 8 Segment 7 Segment 3 Segment 4B Segment 5 Segment 6 Liver Volüm r=0,109; p=0.539 r=0.239; p=0.173* r=0.107; p=0.548* r=0.266; p=0.129 r=-0.068; p=0.701* r=0.284; p=0.103* r=0.355; p=0.039 r=0,062; p=0,729* Lıver V 30Gy r=0,089;p=0.616 r=0,088; p=0,619 r=-0,043; p=0,809 r=-0,139; p=0,432 r=-0,057; p=0,749 r=0,224; p=0,203 r=-0,074; p=0,679 r=0,073; p=0,683 ALP r=0,102;p=0.565 r=0,398; p=0,020 r=0,175; p=0,323 r=0,298; p=0,087 r=0,149; p=0,401 r=0,227; p=0,198 r=0,002; p=0,993 r=0,500; p=0,003 ALT r=0,145;p=0.413 r=0,165; p=0,351 r=0,246; p=0,16 r=0,259; p=0,139 r=0,172; p=0,331 r=0,163; p=0,357 r=0,107; p=0,546 r=0,294; p=0,092 T.PRO r=-0,129; p=0,469 r=0,1; p=0,575* r=-0,37; p=0,031* r=-0,148; p=0,404 r=0,145; p=0,412* r=0,016; p=0,929* r=0,041; p=0,818 r=0,17; p=0,337* ALB r=0,026; p=0,882 r=0,235; p=0,18* r=-0,113; p=0,526* r=0,11; p=0,535 r=0,036; p=0,839* r=0,227; p=0,196* r=0,013; p=0,943 r=0,074; p=0,679* ALB = albumin; ALP = alkaline phosphatase; ALT = alanine transaminase; T.PRO = total proteine; r = Spearman’s rho Korelasyon Katsayısı; r* = Pearson Korelasyon Katsayısı TABLE 7. Comparison of liver values according to surgery Surgery BCS MRM Mean ± SD Median(min-max) Mean ± SD Median (min-max) Test Statistics p-value Liver Volume (cc) 1552.46 ± 320.52 1566.6(1014–2123.5) 1408.3 ± 361.23 1290. (843.8–2298.1) t = 1.214 0.233 Liver V 30Gy (%) 3.1 ± 3.03 1.9 (0–9.1) 2.8 ± 3.93 1.4 (0–12.03) U = 111.5 0.381 Liver mean (Gy) 765.46 ± 339.81 756.7(257.2–1564.2) 729.81 ± 451.29 762.5 (133.8–1699.8) t = 0.262 0.795 BCS = breast conserving surgery; MRM = modified radical mastectomy; T = Independent Samples t Test; U = Mann-Whitney U-test 2,79 3,25 3,58 2,45 2,54 2,5 2,53 2,37 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Segment 2 Segment 4A Segment 8 Segment 7 Segment 3 Segment 4B Segment 5 Segment 6 median(kPa) FIGURE 3. Patients kPa values in liver segments. Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver542 damage, restoring cell homeostasis, eliminating inflammation, and reducing cytotoxicity are es- sential for treating RILD.22 In this study, we determined that there was liver stiffness with MRE without deteriorating se- rum markers. Serum biomarkers have also been explored for liver fibrosis evaluation, but their lack of specificity poses a challenge as they may also be released during inflammation in other tis- sues.23 MRE has also been shown to be superior to other noninvasive methods in assessing liver fibrosis.24 MRE can also be used in the follow-up of NAFLD patients non-invasively. A recent study showed a 15% increase in MRE-LSM (liver stiff- ness measurement) is the strongest predictor of progression to advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.25 Tamaki et al. also proposed that a com- bination of MRE with FIB-4 score (MEFIB index) be used for detecting patients with NAFLD and significant fibrosis for enrollment in NASH clini- cal trials.26 Beyond that, MRE-LSM is shown to be a significant predictor of the development of cirrho- sis, as baseline LSM is predictive of the develop- ment of liver-related events such as decompensa- tion or death.27 A recent study that evaluated the MEFIB index showed excellent negative predictive value for hepatic decompensation in patients with NAFLD-related cirrhosis. In this study, the inves- tigators also observed that MRE-LSM is associated with hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular car- cinoma, and death in patients with NAFLD-related cirrhosis.28 Regarding the outcomes of this research, no sig- nificant difference was observed between BCS and MRM surgery according to the liver radiotherapy doses applied to patients with right breast cancer. Although one could expect that individuals who had undergone MRM could be affected more than BCS patients as the ratio of radiation exposed vol- ume was higher, no significant difference has been observed. However, this might be attributed to the low level of liver V30Gy in the MRM group. Also, no statistically significant difference existed in mean liver volume according to surgery; addition- ally, no statistically significant difference in the median 30Gy liver volume according to surgery has been achieved. Limitations This study is not without its limitations. One sig- nificant limitation is the relatively small sample size, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Future studies with larger samples would provide more robust and reliable conclusions. Another limitation arises from the heterogeneity of the patient population, as the study included individuals at varying stages of their condition. While this may offer a broader perspective, it also introduces variability that could potentially affect the consistency of the results. Addressing these limitations in future research would strengthen the validity of the findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. This study has some limitations. One of them is sample size. The other one is retrospective data collection and analysis, as well as a heterogeneous group. Conclusions Despite the limited sample size, this study is among the few that examine the effects of breast radiotherapy on the liver using both (MRE) and biochemical markers. Regarding the outcomes of this research, MRE can help us identify the level of fibrotic stiffness in the liver segments within the RT area without establishing clinical symptoms. MRE can support the clinician in evaluating the liver functions of right breast cancer patients who underwent RT. We assume these results will facili- tate new studies with a large number of patients on MRE imaging at certain intervals in the follow-up of patients with right breast cancer who received RT before the development of RILD. References 1. Darby SC, McGale P, Taylor CW, Peto R. Long-term mortality from heart dis- ease and lung cancer after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: prospective cohort study of about 300,000 women in US SEER cancer registries. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 557-65. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(05)70251-5 2. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 987-98. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209825 3. Zhang J, Jiang S, Zhang R, Zhang L. Increased 18F-FAPI uptake in radiation- induced liver injury. Clin Nucl Med 2023; 48: e474-e6. doi:10.1097/ RLU.0000000000004801 4. Adediran OA, Lawal IO, Muzahir S, Bhave MA, Friend S, Fielder B, et al. A dis- cordant pattern of uptake on 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus 18 F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in radiation-induced hepatitis: implications for early postradiother- apy imaging-based response assessment. Clin Nucl Med 2023; 48: e202-e3. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004565 5. Haji G, Nabizade U, Kazimov K, Guliyeva N, Isayev I. Liver dose reduction by deep inspiration breath hold technique in right-sided breast irradiation. Radiat Oncol J 2019; 37: 254-8. doi: 10.3857/roj.2019.00206 6. Nissen HD, Appelt AL. Improved heart, lung and target dose with deep inspiration breath hold in a large clinical series of breast cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2013; 106: 28-32. 10.1016/j.radonc.2012.10.016 7. Malnick SDH, Alin P, Somin M, Neuman MG. Fatty liver disease-alcoholic and non-alcoholic: similar but different. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23: 16226. doi: 10.3390/ijms232416226 Radiol Oncol 2024; 58(4): 535-543. Hanedan Uslu G et al. / Breast radiotherapy effect on liver 543 8. Navin PJ, Olson MC, Mendiratta-Lala M, Hallemeier CL, Torbenson MS, Venkatesh SK. Imaging features in the liver after stereotactic body radiation therapy. Radiographics 2022; 42: 2131-48. doi: 10.1148/rg.220084 9. Hama Y, Tate E. MRI-guided stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for liver metastasis from pancreatic cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2022; 18(Supp): S489- 92. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1091_20 10. Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2014; 22: 433-46. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2014.05.001 11. Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 544-55. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23731 12. Idilman IS, Karcaaltincaba M. The role of magnetic resonance elastography in the evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatol Forum 2023; 4: 1-2. doi: 10.14744/hf.2023.2023.0004 13. Chiang CL, Chiu KWH, Chan KSK, Lee FAS, Li JCB, Wan CWS, et al. Sequential transarterial chemoembolisation and stereotactic body radiotherapy fol- lowed by immunotherapy as conversion therapy for patients with locally advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (START-FIT): a single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 8: 169-78. doi: 10.1016/ S2468-1253(22)00339-9 14. Nielsen J, Kjær MS, Rasmussen A, Chiranth D, Willemoe GL, Henriksen BM, et al. Noninvasive prediction of advanced fibrosis in pediatric liver disease- discriminatory performance of 2D shear wave elastography, transient elastography and magnetic resonance elastography in comparison to histo- pathology. Diagnostics 2022; 12: 2785. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112785 15. Gheorghe G, Bungău S, Ceobanu G, Ilie M, Bacalbaşa N, Bratu OG, et al. The non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis. J Formos Med Assoc 2021; 120: 794-803. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.08.019 16. Hsu C, Caussy C, Imajo K, Chen J, Singh S, Kaulback K, et al. Magnetic resonance vs transient elastography analysis of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and pooled analysis of individual participants. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 630-7.e8. doi: 10.1016/j. cgh.2018.05.059 17. Petroff D, Blank V, Newsome PN, Shalimar, Voican CS, Thiele M, et.al. Assessment of hepatic steatosis by controlled attenuation parameter using the M and XL probes: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 6: 185-98. doi: 10.1016/S2468- 1253(20)30357-5 18. Eddowes PJ, Sasso M, Allison M, Tsochatzis E, Anstee QM, Sheridan D, et al. Accuracy of FibroScan Controlled Attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1717-30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.042 19. Jun BG, Kim YD, Cheon GJ, Kim ES, Jwa E, Kim SG, et al. Clinical significance of radiation-induced liver disease after stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Intern Med 2018; 33: 1093-2. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2016.412 20. Treiber T, Treiber N, Meister G. Regulation of microRNA biogenesis and its crosstalk with other cellular pathways. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2019; 20: 5-20. doi: 10.1038/s41580-018-0059-1 21. Lauffer DC, Miglierini P, Kuhn PA, Thalmann SU, Gutierres-Demierre N, Khomsi F, et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on biological and clinical parameters in right-sided breast cancer. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25: 469-75. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.04.007 22. Zhou YJ, Tang Y, Liu SJ, Zeng PH, Qu L, Jing QC, et al. Radiation-induced liver disease: beyond DNA damage. Cell Cycle 2023; 22: 506-26. doi: 10.1080/15384101.2022.2131163 23. Agbim U, Asrani SK. Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis and prognosis: an update on serum and elastography markers. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 13: 361-74. doi: 10.1080/17474124.2019.1579641 24. Bi J, Liu L, Qin T. Comparison of magnetic resonance elastography and tran- sient elastography in the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med 2021; 10: 8692-700. doi: 10.21037/ apm-21-1176 25. Ajmera VH, Liu A, Singh S, Yachoa G, Ramey M, Bhargava M, et al. Clinical utility of an increase in magnetic resonance elastography in predicting fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2020; 71: 849-60. doi: 10.1002/hep.30974 26. Tamaki N, Imajo K, Sharpton S, Jung J, Kawamura N, Yoneda M, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography plus fibrosis-4 versus fibroscan-aspartate aminotransferase in detection of candidates for pharmacological treat- ment of NASH-related fibrosis. Hepatology 2022; 75: 661-72. doi: 10.1002/ hep.32145 27. Gidener T, Ahmed OT, Larson JJ, Mara KC, Therneau TM, Venkatesh SK, et al. Liver stiffness by magnetic resonance elastography predicts future cirrhosis, decompensation, and death in NAFLD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 1915-24.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.044 28. Ajmera V, Kim BK, Yang K, Majzoub AM, Nayfeh T, Tamaki N, et al. Liver stiffness on magnetic resonance elastography and the MEFIB index and liver-related Outcomes in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participants. Gastroenterology 2022; 163: 1079-89.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.073