1
|
Bao YQ, Yu TH, Huang W, Mao QF, Tu GJ, Li B, Yi A, Li JG, Rao J, Zhang HW, Jiang CL. Simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy post breast-conserving surgery: clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and cosmetic outcomes in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer 2024; 31:726-734. [PMID: 38705942 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-024-01588-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 04/21/2024] [Indexed: 05/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) is an innovative technique delivering a higher dose to the tumor bed while irradiating the entire breast. This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes, adverse effects, and cosmetic results of SIB-IMRT following breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of 308 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery and SIB-IMRT from January 2016 to December 2020. The prescribed doses included 1.85 Gy/27 fractions to the whole breast and 2.22 Gy/27 fractions or 2.20 Gy/27 fractions to the tumor bed. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS), local-regional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), acute and late toxicities, and cosmetic outcomes. RESULTS The median follow-up time was 36 months. The 3-year OS, LRC, and DMFS rates were 100%, 99.6%, and 99.2%, respectively. Five patients (1.8%) experienced local recurrence or distant metastasis, and one patient succumbed to distant metastasis. The most common acute toxicity was grade 1-2 skin reactions (91.6%). The most common late toxicity was grade 0-1 skin and subcutaneous tissue reactions (96.7%). Five patients (1.8%) developed grade 1-2 upper limb lymphedema, and three patients (1.1%) had grade 1 radiation pneumonitis. Among the 262 patients evaluated for cosmetic outcomes at least 2 years post-radiotherapy, 96.9% achieved excellent or good results, while 3.1% had fair or poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS SIB-IMRT after breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients demonstrated excellent clinical efficacy, mild acute and late toxicities, and satisfactory cosmetic outcomes in our study. SIB-IMRT appears to be a feasible and effective option for breast cancer patients suitable for breast-conserving surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong-Qiang Bao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
- Medical Oncology, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang People's Hospital Affiliated of Nanchang Medical College, Nanchang, 330009, Jiangxi, China
| | - Teng-Hua Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
| | - Wei Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Qing-Feng Mao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
| | - Gan-Jie Tu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
| | - Bin Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
| | - An Yi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
| | - Jin-Gao Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China
| | - Jun Rao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China.
| | - Huai-Wen Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China.
| | - Chun-Ling Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Jiangxi Cancer Institute, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China.
- Key Laboratory of Personalized Diagnosis and Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Medical College of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330029, Jiangxi, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Talapatra K, Chitkara G, Murali-Nanavati S, Gupte A, Bardeskar NS, Behal S, Shaikh M, Atluri P. Practice of Tumor Bed Boost in Patients after Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery. Indian J Surg Oncol 2024; 15:63-70. [PMID: 38511033 PMCID: PMC10948658 DOI: 10.1007/s13193-023-01824-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
Abstract
The practice of boost to the tumor bed after treatment with oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (BCS) remains variable. Using a survey, the present study evaluated the current practice of tumor bed boost administered in women after oncoplastic BCS. Actively practicing radiation oncologists across India were sent a questionnaire on the practice of adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy and tumor bed boost after oncoplastic BCS via email and encouraged to participate. Of the 54 radiation oncologists who participated, most (98.1%) used a linear accelerator for radiotherapy. Hypofractionation was preferred by 59.26%, standard fractionation by 7.41%, and the remaining selected the fractionation strategy based on various patient factors. In addition, 83.33% participants reported that they always planned tumor boost, 51.85% preferred photons for the boost, and 75.93% administered sequential boost. The most common dose for the boost was 12.5 Gy in five fractions (40.74%). Most participants (77.78%) revealed that they used a combination of methods for identifying the tumor bed. With respect to clip placement, most surgeons (96%) at the participants' centers placed ≥ 4 clips at the tumor site, with both the base and margins being preferred by surgeons (81.48%) for placement. Finally, 12.96% participants revealed that the surgeons always involved them during surgical planning, whereas 7.4% participants reported that they always included the surgeons during radiotherapy planning, suggesting that radiation oncologists and oncoplastic surgeons do not involve each other during surgical and radiotherapy planning, possibly leading to suboptimal treatment. This may be attributed to the absence of guidelines regarding boost practices after oncoplastic BCS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaustav Talapatra
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Garvit Chitkara
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Sridevi Murali-Nanavati
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Ajinkya Gupte
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Nikhil S. Bardeskar
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Shruti Behal
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Muzammil Shaikh
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| | - Pooja Atluri
- Nanavati Max Institute of Cancer Care, Nanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, 400056 India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Forster T, Köhler C, Dorn M, Häfner MF, Arians N, König L, Harrabi SB, Schlampp I, Weykamp F, Meixner E, Lang K, Heinrich V, Weidner N, Hüsing J, Wallwiener M, Golatta M, Hennigs A, Heil J, Hof H, Krug D, Debus J, Hörner-Rieber J. Noninferiority of Local Control and Comparable Toxicity of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Breast Cancer: 5-Year Results of the IMRT-MC2 Phase III Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:857-868. [PMID: 37244626 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2023] [Revised: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The IMRT-MC2 trial was conducted to demonstrate the noninferiority of conventionally fractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost to 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with a sequential boost for adjuvant breast radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 502 patients were randomized between 2011 and 2015 for the prospective, multicenter, phase III trial (NCT01322854). Five-year results of late toxicity (late effects normal tissue task force-subjective, objective, management, and analytical), overall survival, disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, cosmesis (Harvard scale), and local control (noninferiority margin at hazard ratio [HR] of 3.5) were analyzed after a median follow-up of 62 months. RESULTS The 5-year local control rate for the intensity modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost arm was non-inferior to the control arm (98.7% vs 98.3%, respectively; HR, 0.582; 95% CI, 0.119-2.375; P = .4595). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival (97.1% vs 98.3%, respectively; HR, 1.235; 95% CI, 0.472-3.413; P = .6697), disease-free survival (95.8% vs 96.1%, respectively; HR, 1.130; 95% CI, 0.487-2.679; P = .7758), and distant disease-free survival (97.0% vs 97.8%, respectively; HR, 1.667; 95% CI, 0.575-5.434; P = .3601). After 5 years, late toxicity evaluation and cosmetic assessment further showed no significant differences between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS The 5-year results of the IMRT-MC2 trial provide strong evidence that the application of conventionally fractionated simultaneous integrated boost irradiation for patients with breast cancer is both safe and effective, with noninferior local control compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with sequential boost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tobias Forster
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Clara Köhler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Melissa Dorn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Matthias Felix Häfner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nathalie Arians
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Laila König
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Ben Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ingmar Schlampp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Fabian Weykamp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Meixner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristin Lang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Vanessa Heinrich
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Nicola Weidner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Johannes Hüsing
- Division of Biostatistics, Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus Wallwiener
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Michael Golatta
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - André Hennigs
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jörg Heil
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Holger Hof
- Strahlentherapie Rhein-Pfalz, Neustadt, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, partner site Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhong AY, Lui AJ, Katz MS, Berlin A, Kamran SC, Kishan AU, Murthy V, Nagar H, Seible D, Stish BJ, Tree AC, Seibert TM. Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer: radiation oncologists' perspectives and perceived barriers to implementation. Radiat Oncol 2023; 18:188. [PMID: 37950310 PMCID: PMC10638743 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02375-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/05/2023] [Indexed: 11/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In a recent phase III randomized control trial, delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve disease-free survival and regional/distant metastasis-free survival for patients with prostate cancer-without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice, as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation. METHODS We invited radiation oncologists to complete an online questionnaire assessing their use of intraprostatic focal boost in December 2022 and February 2023. To include perspectives from a broad range of practice settings, the invitation was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. RESULTS 263 radiation oncologist participants responded. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). Overall, 43% of participants reported routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Complete GU-subspecialists were more likely to implement focal boost, with 61% reporting routine use. In both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries, less than half of participants routinely use focal boost. The most cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%). CONCLUSIONS Two years following publication of a randomized trial of patient benefit without increased toxicity, almost half of the radiation oncologists surveyed are now routinely offering focal RT boost. Further adoption of this technique might be aided by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison Y Zhong
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Asona J Lui
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Matthew S Katz
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Lowell General Hospital, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Alejandro Berlin
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Sophia C Kamran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Vedang Murthy
- ACTREC, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | | | - Daniel Seible
- Anchorage and Valley Radiation Therapy Centers, Anchorage, AK, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Alison C Tree
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Tyler M Seibert
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
- Departments of Radiology and Bioengineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rades D, Eggert MC, Janssen S, Yu NY. Whole-breast Radiotherapy With Boost for Node-negative Breast Cancer: Conventional vs. Hypo-fractionation. In Vivo 2023; 37:2628-2633. [PMID: 37905665 PMCID: PMC10621455 DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2023] [Revised: 08/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/29/2023] [Indexed: 11/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM Many breast cancer patients receive adjuvant radiotherapy. Tumor bed boost may reduce risk of local failure in high risk patients. We compared hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) plus boost (HF+boost) and conventionally fractionated WBI plus boost (CF+boost). PATIENTS AND METHODS One-hundred-and-twenty-eight patients receiving HF-WBI (40 Gy in 15 fractions) plus boost (group A) were matched to 127 patients receiving CF-WBI (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) plus boost (group B), utilizing 10 characteristics. RESULTS Grade ≥2 dermatitis rates were 16.4% in group A vs. 44.1% in group B (p<0.0001), and grade ≥2 pneumonitis rates were 1.6% vs. 2.4% (p=0.68). Four-year rates of local control, metastases-free survival, and overall survival were 100% vs. 99% (p=0.81), 98% vs. 100% (p=0.29), and 98% vs. 100% (p=0.17), respectively. CONCLUSION HF+boost was associated with significantly less grade ≥2 dermatitis with similar disease control and survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dirk Rades
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany;
| | - Marie C Eggert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Stefan Janssen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Nathan Y Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Krug D, Dunst J. [Moderate hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for breast cancer]. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:1033-1035. [PMID: 37698593 PMCID: PMC10598182 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02144-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/16/2023] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- David Krug
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie/Radioonkologie, UKSH, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland
| | - Jürgen Dunst
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie/Radioonkologie, UKSH, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lange T, Knöchelmann AC, Bremer M. [Adjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer]. RADIOLOGIE (HEIDELBERG, GERMANY) 2023; 63:693-702. [PMID: 37581632 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-023-01198-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/16/2023]
Abstract
Adjuvant radiotherapy is an integral part of multimodal therapy for early breast cancer. It contributes to the reduction of local recurrences across all disease stages. (Moderate) hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation is the standard of care. In low-risk situations, partial breast irradiation can be an option. The indication for adjuvant radiotherapy after mastectomy or additional irradiation of regional lymph nodes depends on the patient's individual risk profile. Long-term results of treatment and further development of irradiation techniques now allow shorter, individualized and well-tolerated treatments with the aim of therapy de-escalation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tim Lange
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Spezielle Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.
| | - Anne Caroline Knöchelmann
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Spezielle Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland
| | - Michael Bremer
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Spezielle Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pfaffendorf C, Vonthein R, Krockenberger-Ziegler K, Dellas K, Schreiber A, Uhlemann D, Dinges S, Würschmidt F, Andreas P, Weinstrauch E, Eilf K, Rades D, Höller U, Combs SE, Kazmierczak R, Fehlauer F, Schreck U, Zimmer J, Dunst J, Krug D. Hypofractionation with simultaneous integrated boost after breast-conserving surgery: Long term results of two phase-II trials. Breast 2022; 64:136-142. [PMID: 35691249 PMCID: PMC9190051 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.05.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2022] [Revised: 05/29/2022] [Accepted: 05/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Methods Results Conclusion Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy with SIB was safe and feasible. The local control rate at 5 years was 99.6%. The rate of late grade 3 toxicity was 0.7%.
Collapse
|
9
|
Breast clinical target volume: HU-based glandular CTVs and ESTRO CTVs in modern and historical radiotherapy treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 198:229-235. [PMID: 34477884 PMCID: PMC8863698 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01839-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/09/2021] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The current study aimed to compare contouring of glandular tissue only (gCTV) with the clinical target volume (CTV) as defined according to European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) guidelines (eCTV) and historically treated volumes (marked by wire and determined by palpation and anatomic landmarks) in breast cancer radiotherapy. METHODS A total of 56 consecutive breast cancer patients underwent treatment planning based solely on anatomic landmarks/wire markings ("wire based"). From these treatment plans, the 50% and 95% isodoses were transferred as structures and compared to the following CT-based volumes: eCTV; a Hounsfield unit (HU)-based automatic contouring of the gCTV; and standardized planning target volumes (PTVs) generated with 1‑cm safety margins (resulting in the ePTVs and gPTVs, respectively). RESULTS The 95% isodose volume of the wire-based plan was larger than the eCTV by 352.39 ± 176.06 cm3 but smaller than the ePTV by 157.58 ± 189.32 cm3. The 95% isodose was larger than the gCTV by 921.20 ± 419.78 cm3 and larger than the gPTV by 190.91 ± 233.49 cm3. Patients with larger breasts had significantly less glandular tissue than those with small breasts. There was a trend toward a lower percentage of glandular tissue in older patients. CONCLUSION Historical wire and anatomic landmarks-based treatment planning sufficiently covers the glandular tissue and the theoretical gPTV generated for the glandular tissue. Modern CT-based CTV and PTV definition according to ESTRO results in a larger treated volume than the historical wire-based techniques. HU-standardized glandular tissue contouring results in a significantly smaller CTV and might be an option for reducing the treatment volume and improving reproducibility of contouring between institutions.
Collapse
|
10
|
Borm KJ, Junker Y, Düsberg M, Devečka M, Münch S, Dapper H, Oechsner M, Combs SE. Impact of CBCT frequency on target coverage and dose to the organs at risk in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy. Sci Rep 2021; 11:17378. [PMID: 34462489 PMCID: PMC8405651 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96836-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The current study aims to assess the effect of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) frequency during adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) on target volume coverage and dose to the organs at risk (OAR). 50 breast cancer patients receiving either non-hypofractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy after lumpectomy including a SIB to the tumor bed were selected for this study. All patients were treated in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and underwent daily CBCT imaging. In order to estimate the delivered dose during the treatment, the applied fraction doses were recalculated on daily CBCT scans and accumulated using deformable image registration. Based on a total of 2440 dose recalculations, dose coverage in the clinical target volumes (CTV) and OAR was compared depending on the CBCT frequency. The estimated delivered dose (V95%) for breast-CTV and SIB-CTV was significantly lower than the planned dose distribution, irrespective of the CBCT-frequency. Between daily CBCT and CBCT on alternate days, no significant dose differences were found regarding V95% for both, breast-CTV and SIB-CTV. Dose distribution in the OAR was similar for both imaging protocols. Weekly CBCT though led to a significant decrease in dose coverage compared to daily CBCT and a small but significant dose increase in most OAR. Daily CBCT imaging might not be necessary to ensure adequate dose coverage in the target volumes while efficiently sparing the OAR during adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy with SIB.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai J Borm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
| | - Yannis Junker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Mathias Düsberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Michal Devečka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Stefan Münch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Hendrik Dapper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Markus Oechsner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Medical School, Technical University Munich, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.,Deutsches Konsortium Für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK)-Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany.,Institute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtzzentrum München, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Untch M, Fasching PA, Brucker SY, Budach W, Denkert C, Haidinger R, Huober J, Jackisch C, Janni W, Kolberg-Liedtke C, Krug D, Kühn T, Loibl S, Lüftner D, Müller V, Schneeweiss A, Thill M, Harbeck N, Thomssen C. Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Evidence, Controversies, Consensus: German Expert Opinions on the 17th International St. Gallen Consensus Conference. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81:637-653. [PMID: 34168378 PMCID: PMC8216767 DOI: 10.1055/a-1483-2782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
This year's 17th St. Gallen (SG) Consensus Conference on the Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer (SG-BCC) with the title "Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer" focused on the challenge of targeting the treatment of early breast cancer more specifically to the individual disease situation of each patient. As in previous years, a German working group of leading breast cancer experts discussed the results of the international SG-BCC 2021 in the context of the German guideline. It is helpful to compare the SG recommendations with the recently updated treatment recommendations of the Breast Commission of the German Working Group on Gynaecological Oncology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie e. V., AGO) and the S3 guideline because the SG-BCC panel comprised experts from different countries, which is why country-specific aspects can be incorporated into the SG recommendations. The German treatment recommendations of the AGO and the S3 guideline are based on current evidence. Nevertheless, any therapeutic decision must always undergo a risk-benefit analysis for the specific situation and to be discussed with the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Untch
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, interdisziplinäres Brustzentrum, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany
| | - Peter A. Fasching
- Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | - Wilfried Budach
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinik Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Carsten Denkert
- Pathologisches Institut, Philipps Universität Marburg und Universitätsklinikum Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany
| | | | - Jens Huober
- Brustzentrum Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
- Brustzentrum, Universitätsfrauenklinik Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Christian Jackisch
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Sana-Klinikum Offenbach GmbH, Offenbach, Germany
| | | | - Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke
- Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
- palleos healthcare GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany
- Phaon scientific GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie (Radioonkologie), Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Thorsten Kühn
- Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Klinikum Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany
| | - Sibylle Loibl
- German Breast Group (GBG), Neu-Isenburg, Germany
- Centrum für Hämatologie und Onkologie Bethanien, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Diana Lüftner
- Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie, Onkologie und Tumorimmunologie, Charité Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Volkmar Müller
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Gynäkologie, Universitätsklinik Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Andreas Schneeweiss
- Sektionsleiter Gynäkologische Onkologie, Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen (NCT) Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marc Thill
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Gynäkologische Onkologie, Interdisziplinäres Brustzentrum, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Nadia Harbeck
- Brustzentrum, Frauenklinik, LMU Klinikum, München, Germany
| | - Christoph Thomssen
- Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Gynäkologie, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
| |
Collapse
|