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 PMCID: PMC11194202 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
|
Ali D, Piffoux M. Methodological guide for assessing the carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy: A single-center study with quantified mitigation strategies. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 46:100768. [PMID: 38633470 PMCID: PMC11021844 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100768] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2023] [Revised: 02/19/2024] [Accepted: 03/23/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purposes Data on the carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) are scarce. Reliable and exhaustive data, including a detailed carbon inventory, are needed to determine effective mitigation strategies. Materials and methods This study proposes a methodology for calculating the carbon footprint of EBRT and applies it to a single center. Mitigation strategies are derived from the carbon inventory, and their potential reductions are quantified whenever possible. Results The average emission per treatment and fraction delivered was 489 kg CO₂eq and 27 kg CO₂eq, respectively. Patient transportation (43 %) and the construction and maintenance of linear accelerators (LINACs) and scanners (17 %) represented the most significant components. Electricity, the only energy source used, accounted for only 2 % of emissions.Derived mitigation strategies include a data deletion policy (reducing emissions in 30 years by 12.5 %), geographical appropriateness (-12.2 %), transportation mode appropriateness (-9.3 %), hypofractionation (-5.9 %), decrease in manufacturers' carbon footprint (-5.2 %), and an increase in machine durability (-3.5 %). Conclusion Our findings indicate that a significant reduction in the carbon footprint of a radiotherapy unit can be achieved without compromising the quality of care.This study provides a methodology and a starting point for comparison and proposes and quantifies mitigation strategies, paving the way for others to follow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Ali
- Centre de Radiothérapie et de Traitement des Tumeurs, Versailles, France
| | - Max Piffoux
- Département d’Oncologie Médicale, Hospices Civils de Lyon, CITOHL, Lyon, France
- Direction de la Recherche Clinique et de l’Innovation, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| |
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
|
Unterkirhere O, Stenger-Weisser A, Kaever A, Hoeng L, Jeller D, Logaritsch P, Glanzmann C, Studer G. Single-Institution Prospective Evaluation of Moderately Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost With or Without Lymphatic Drainage Irradiation After Breast-Conserving Surgery. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101270. [PMID: 38047219 PMCID: PMC10692289 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose We report treatment outcomes for patients who received adjuvant moderate hypofractionated whole-breast radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-mhWBRT) after breast-conserving surgery. Methods and Materials SIB-mhWBRT for patients with breast cancer was introduced in our department in July 2017. This prospective evaluation includes 424 consecutive patients treated with SIB-mhWBRT for stage I-III invasive breast cancer (n = 391) and/or ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 33) until December 2021. SIB-mhWBRT was applied with 40 Gy in 15 daily fractions over 3 weeks according to the START B trial, with an SIB dose to the tumor bed of 48 Gy according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1005/UK-IMPORT-HIGH, delivered as 3-dinemsional conformal radiation therapy (RT; n = 402), intensity modulated RT (n = 4), or volumetric modulated arc therapy (n = 18). The mean patient age was 60 years (range, 27-88). Since May 2018, patients with indications for lymphatic pathway RT were included (n = 62). Baseline parameters and follow-up data were recorded and reported, including objective assessment of treatment-related outcomes and subjective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results Mean/median follow-up was 29/33 months (range, 2-60). Acute toxicity grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 was observed in 25.0%, 61.4%, 13.3%, and 0%, respectively, at the completion of RT. Data of 281, 266, 243, 172, and 58 patients were available for 6-month and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year follow-up, respectively. Grade 2 late effects were identified in 8.5%, 6.0%, 4.9%, 2.2%, and 10.2% and grade 3 in 2.8%, 1.1%, 1.2%, 0%, and 0% of patients at 6-month and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year follow-up, respectively. Medical treatment of breast edema was the only grade 3 late effect observed. PROM cosmesis results were evaluated as excellent-good, fair, and poor in 97.2%, 2.5%, and 0.4%; 96.5%, 3.1%, and 0.4%; 97.4%, 2.2%, and 0.4%; 97.5%, 2.5%, and 0%; and 96.5%, 3.5%, and 0.0% at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years post-RT, respectively. For all patients, the 3-year overall, cancer-specific, and disease-free survival rates were 98.2%, 99.1%, and 95.9%, respectively. Three-year risk of any locoregional recurrence was 0.6%. No mortality or relapse was observed in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Conclusions SIB-mhWBRT demonstrated very favorable side effect profiles and cosmesis/PROMs. Three-year results demonstrate excellent locoregional control. This short-term regimen offers substantial patient comfort and improves institutional efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olga Unterkirhere
- Radiation Oncology Department, Kantonsspital Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Laura Hoeng
- Radiation Oncology Department, Kantonsspital Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - David Jeller
- Radiation Oncology Department, Kantonsspital Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Gabriela Studer
- Radiation Oncology Department, Kantonsspital Luzern, Lucerne, Switzerland
- Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rajan J, Kr R, Sara George P, Arjunan A, Balakrishnan P, Augustine P, Sarah Mathew B. A Comparison Between Sequential Conventional and Hypofractionated Boost Following Whole-Breast Radiotherapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Cureus 2023; 15:e46913. [PMID: 37954819 PMCID: PMC10639086 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46913] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/12/2023] [Indexed: 11/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The majority of local relapses after breast conservation therapy occur in the proximity of the primary lesion. Studies have shown that boost radiotherapy (RT) following conventional whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) of 50 Gy in five weeks improves outcomes. Boost RT also increases the risk of moderate skin reactions and fibrosis. The ideal boost RT dose and timing (sequential versus simultaneous) after hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules remain unclear. This retrospective propensity score-matched analysis assessed the outcome of sequential hypofractionated boost compared to conventional fractionated boost. METHODS The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, India. Patients with stage I-III breast cancer who have received adjuvant radiotherapy with a sequential boost of either hypofractionated RT (8 Gy in three fractions) or conventional fractionated RT (10 Gy in five fractions) after conservative breast surgery were identified from the radiotherapy planning records and included in this study. A 1:1 case matching was performed using a propensity score incorporating four known prognostic factors, namely, clinical and pathological composite stage, tumor grade, tumor biology (based on estrogen and/or progesterone and HER2 neu expression), and boost technique, which may have an impact on acute toxicity to make the two boost groups more homogenous. RESULTS After propensity score matching (PSM), there were a total of 166 patients, with 83 patients each in both conventional and hypofractionated boost RT groups. The median follow-up period was 30.7 months. At two years, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was 98.8% in both groups. Disease-free survival (DFS) at two years for the hypofractionated group and conventional group was 91.5% and 96.3% (hazard ratio (HR): 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.664-9.4, p = 0.161), respectively, with no statistically significant difference. Patients with grade 3 tumors who received hypofractionated boost had a statistically significant increased risk of recurrence (DFS: 88.9% versus 100%, HR: 60.559, 95% CI: 0.138-26613.2, p = 0.011). The overall survival (OS) at two years was 100% in both groups. There was no difference in acute skin toxicity between the two groups. CONCLUSION The present interim analysis shows similar locoregional recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and disease-free survival and acute skin toxicity for hypofractionated boost RT of 8 Gy in three fractions compared to the conventional boost of 10 Gy in five fractions. Hypofractionated boost is a feasible alternative option following hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy for women with breast conservation treatment. However, longer follow-up is required before forming definite conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jewel Rajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| | - Rajeev Kr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| | - Preethi Sara George
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| | - Asha Arjunan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| | - Priya Balakrishnan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| | - Paul Augustine
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| | - Beela Sarah Mathew
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, IND
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bollet MA, Racadot S, Rivera S, Arnaud A, Bourgier C. [Breast cancer radiation therapy: Current questions in 2023]. Cancer Radiother 2023; 27:524-530. [PMID: 37541797 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2023.07.005] [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: 07/03/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 08/06/2023]
Abstract
Radiation therapy is a corner stone of breast cancer treatment as it has been shown postoperatively that it improves local control and overall survival. In recent years, multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies have evolved considerably for early-stage breast cancer, both surgically and in terms of systemic treatments or radiation therapy. Each of these developments affects other treatment components and open up new questions allowing even more personalized treatments. Essentially normofractionated a few years ago, breast radiation therapy is today very largely moderately or even ultra hypofractionated. De-escalation of the surgery of the axilla has changed the indications for lymph node radiation therapy keeping similar efficacy with reduced toxicity. Indications for radiation therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain based on pre-chemotherapy staging pending the results of ongoing randomized studies. The addition of a boost to the tumor bed significantly reduces the risk of local recurrence, but the magnitude of this benefit decreases with increasing age. The main risk factors for local recurrence are young age, the associated extended ductal in situ component, hormone receptor negative and high-grade status. The results of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) seem similar with normo- or moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy regimen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M A Bollet
- Institut de radiothérapie Hartmann, 4, rue Kléber, 92300 Levallois-Perret, France; Institut français du sein, 15, rue Jean-Nicot, 75007 Paris, France
| | - S Racadot
- Département d'oncologie radiothérapie, centre Léon-Bérard, 28, rue Laennec, 69008 Lyon, France
| | - S Rivera
- Département d'oncologie radiothérapie, institut Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif, France; UMR 1030, université Paris-Saclay, Gustave-Roussy, 94805 Villejuif, France.
| | - A Arnaud
- Institut du cancer Sainte-Catherine, Avignon, France
| | - C Bourgier
- Fédération universitaire d'oncologie radiothérapie de Méditerranée Occitanie, Institut du cancer de Montpellier (ICM), université de Montpellier, Inserm U1194, IRCM, Montpellier, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Montero A, Ciérvide R, Cañadillas C, Álvarez B, García-Aranda M, Alonso R, López M, Chen-Zhao X, Alonso L, Valero J, Sánchez E, Hernando O, García de Acilu P, Fernandez-Letón P, Rubio C. Acute skin toxicity of ultra-hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for early breast cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 41:100651. [PMID: 37388711 PMCID: PMC10300060 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Whole-breast irradiation (WBI) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) is indicated to improve loco-regional control and survival. Former studies showed that addition of tumor bed boost in all age groups significantly improved local control although no apparent impact on overall survival but with an increased risk of worse cosmetic outcome. Even though shortened regimens in 3 weeks are considered the standard, recent studies have shown the non-inferiority of a treatment regimen of 5 fractions in one-week in both locoregional control and toxicity profile, although simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in this setting has been scarcely studied. Materials and Methods From March-2020 to March-2022, 383 patients with early breast cancer diagnosis and a median age of 56 years-old (range 30-99)were included in a prospective registry of ultra-hypofractionated WBI up to a total dose of 26 Gy in 5.2 Gy/fraction with a SIB of 29 Gy in 5.8 Gy/fraction in 272 patients (71%), 30-31 Gy in 6-6.2 Gy/fraction in 111 patients (29%) with close/focally affected margins. Radiation treatment was delivered by conformal 3-D technique in 366 patients (95%), VMAT in 16patients (4%) and conformal 3-D with deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) in 4patients (1%). Ninety-three per cent of patients received endocrine therapy and 43% systemic or targeted chemotherapy. Development of acute skin complications was retrospectively reviewed. Results With a median follow-up of 18 months (range 7-31), all patients are alive without evidence of local, regional or distant relapse. Acute tolerance was acceptable, with null o mild toxicity: 182 (48%) and 15 (4%) patients developed skin toxicity grade 1 and 2 respectively; 9 (2%) and 2 (0.5%) patients breast edema grade 1and 2 respectively. No other acute toxicities were observed. We also evaluated development of early delayed complications and observed grade 1 breast edema in 6 patients (2%); grade 1 hyperpigmentation in 20 patients (5%); and grade 1 and 2 breast induration underneath boost region in 10(3%) and 2 patients (0.5%) respectively. We found a statistically significant correlation between the median PTVWBI and presence of skin toxicity (p = 0.028) as well as a significant correlation between late hyperpigmentation with the median PTVBOOST (p = 0.007) and the ratio PTVBOOST/PTVWBI (p = 0.042). Conclusion Ultra-hypofractionated WBI + SIB in 5 fractions over one-week is feasible and well tolerated, although longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angel Montero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
- Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Madrid, Spain
| | - Raquel Ciérvide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Beatriz Álvarez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Rosa Alonso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mercedes López
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Xin Chen-Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Leyre Alonso
- Department of Medical Physics, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jeannete Valero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Emilio Sánchez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ovidio Hernando
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Carmen Rubio
- Department of Medical Physics, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Dzhugashvili M, Veldeman L, Kirby AM. The role of the radiation therapy breast boost in the 2020s. Breast 2023; 69:299-305. [PMID: 36958070 PMCID: PMC10068257 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.03.009] [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: 01/09/2023] [Revised: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Given that most local relapses of breast cancer occur proximal to the original location of the primary, the delivery of additional radiation dose to breast tissue that contained the original primary cancer (known as a "boost") has been a standard of care for some decades. In the context of falling relapse rates, however, it is an appropriate time to re-evaluate the role of the boost. This article reviews the evolution of the radiotherapy boost in breast cancer, discussing who to boost and how to boost in the 2020s, and arguing that, in both cases, less is more.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - L Veldeman
- Ghent University/Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - A M Kirby
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Institute of Cancer Research, UK.
| |
Collapse
|