A randomised controlled trial to evaluate both the role and the optimal fractionation of radiotherapy in the conservative management of early breast cancer

Randomised controlled trials on radiation dose fractionation in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on side effects and cosmesis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive assessment of various fractionation schemes in radiation therapy for breast cancer, with a focus on side effects, cosmesis, quality of life, risks of recurrence, and survival outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 23 October 2023).

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were randomised controlled trials focusing on conventional fractionation (CF; daily fractions of 1.8-2 Gy, reaching a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy over 5-6 weeks), moderate hypofractionation (MHF; fraction sizes of 2.65-3.3 Gy for 13-16 fractions over 3-5 weeks), and/or ultra-hypofractionation (UHF; schedule of only 5 fractions).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent investigators screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach, respectively.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistic. Network meta-analysis was used to integrate all available evidence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The pre-specified primary outcome was grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis and late radiation therapy related side effects; secondary outcomes included cosmesis, quality of life, recurrence, and survival metrics.

RESULTS

From 1754 studies, 59 articles representing 35 trials (20 237 patients) were assessed; 21.6% of outcomes showed low risk of bias, whereas 78.4% had some concerns or high risk, particularly in outcome measurement (47.4%). The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for MHF compared with CF was 0.54 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.61; P<0.001) and 0.68 (0.49 to 0.93; P=0.02) following breast conserving therapy and mastectomy, respectively. Hyperpigmentation and grade ≥2 breast shrinkage were less frequent after MHF than after CF, with RRs of 0.77 (0.62 to 0.95; P=0.02) and 0.92 (0.85 to 0.99; P=0.03), respectively, in the combined breast conserving therapy and mastectomy population. However, in the breast conserving therapy only trials, these differences in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.79, 0.60 to 1.03; P=0.08) and breast shrinkage (0.94, 0.83 to 1.07; P=0.35) were not statistically significant. The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for UHF compared with MHF was 0.85 (0.47 to 1.55; P=0.60) for breast conserving therapy and mastectomy patients combined. MHF was associated with improved cosmesis and quality of life compared with CF, whereas data on UHF were less conclusive. Survival and recurrence outcomes were similar between UHF, MHF, and CF.

CONCLUSIONS

MHF shows improved safety profile, cosmesis, and quality of life compared with CF while maintaining equivalent oncological outcomes. Fewer randomised controlled trials have compared UHF with other fractionation schedules, but its safety and oncological effectiveness seem to be similar with short term follow-up. Given the advantages of reduced treatment time, enhanced convenience for patients, and potential cost effectiveness, MHF and UHF should be considered as preferred options over CF in appropriate clinical settings, with further research needed to solidify these findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023460249.

Women's Preferences for Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

The primary treatment recommended for early-stage breast cancer is breast conserving surgery followed by external beam radiation therapy of the whole breast. Previously, radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer was given using more fractions over longer durations. Guidelines support treatments with fewer fractions over a shorter time (hypofractionated radiation therapy). This study aimed to understand women's preferences for different features of treatments for early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A discrete choice experiment with 12 choice tasks was conducted, describing the treatments by extent of surgery, duration of radiation treatment, need to relocate for treatment, local side effects, changes in breast appearance, costs, and difficulty with daily activities during and after treatment. Participants were women with breast cancer and from the general population. Mixed logit analyses were conducted and trade-offs between attributes estimated.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty respondents completed the discrete choice experiment. The relative importance of attributes varied by respondent characteristics; the most influential attribute for younger women was type of surgery (breast conserving surgery). Type of surgery did not influence older women's preferences. Shorter treatment duration, avoiding relocation, fewer local side effects, and less difficulty with daily activities all positively influenced treatment preference. Younger women were willing to accept 32 to 40 days of radiation treatment before a treatment that included mastectomy was potentially acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Attributes of treatment such as duration, need for relocation, side effects, and effects on normal daily activities during and after treatment significantly influenced women's preference for treatment, including surgery. Our findings have the potential for real impact for patients and services including supporting one-on-one clinical discussions, supporting program and patient resource development, and informing service funding, organization, and delivery.

The Choosing Wisely Oncology Canada Cancer List: An Update

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely (CW) Canada is a national campaign to identify unnecessary or harmful services that are frequently used in Canada. The original CW Oncology Canada Cancer list was developed in 2014. A CW Oncology Canada working group was established to review new evidence and guidelines and to update the current CW Oncology Canada Cancer List.

METHODS

Between January and March 2022, we conducted a survey of members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncology (CAMO), Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) and the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology (CSSO). We took the feedback from the survey, including potential new recommendations as well as those that were thought to be no longer relevant and up to date, and conducted a literature review with the assistance of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH). The final updated list of recommendations was made by the CW Oncology Canada working group based on a consensus process.

RESULTS

We reviewed two potential recommendations to add and two potential recommendations to remove from the existing CW Oncology Canada Cancer List. The recommendation "Do not prescribe whole brain radiation over stereotactic radiosurgery for patient with limited brain metastases (≤4 lesions)" was supported by several evidence-based guidelines with the strength of recommendations ranging from strong to moderate and the quality of evidence ranging from level 1 to level 3. After reviewing the evidence, the working group felt that the other potential recommendation to add and the two potential recommendations to remove did not have sufficient strength and quality of evidence at this time to be added or removed from the list.

CONCLUSION

The updated Choosing Wisely Oncology Canada Cancer List consists of 11 items that oncologists should question in the treatment of patients with cancer. This list can be used to design specific interventions to reduce low value care.

Hypofractionation: The standard for external beam breast irradiation

This overview provides the historical perspective of external beam breast hypofractionation over the last 50 years. It highlights the serious harm suffered by patients with breast cancer in the 1970's and 1980's because of new hypofractionation regimens based on a theoretical radiobiology model being adopted into clinical practice to solve a resource issue without testing within clinical trials and without the essential radiotherapy quality assurance. It then describes the high-quality clinical trials comparing 3-week with 5-week standard of care regimens that were initiated based on a strong scientific rationale for hypofractionation in breast cancer. Today, there are still challenges with universal implementation of the results of these moderate hypofractionation studies, but there is now a substantial body of evidence to support 3-week breast radiotherapy with several large randomised trials still to report. The limit of breast hypofractionation is then explored and randomised trials investigating 1-week radiotherapy are described. This approach is now standard of care in many countries for whole or partial breast radiotherapy and chest wall radiotherapy without immediate reconstruction. It also has the advantage of reducing burden of treatment for patients and providing cost-effective care. Further research is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of 1-week breast locoregional radiotherapy and following immediate breast reconstruction. In addition, clinical studies are required to determine how a tumour bed boost for patients with breast cancer at higher risk of relapse can be incorporated simultaneously into a 1-week radiotherapy schedule. As such, the breast hypofractionation story is still unfolding.

Patient characteristics and clinical factors affecting lumpectomy cavity volume: implications for partial breast irradiation

Introduction

Partial breast irradiation (PBI) has increased in utilization, with the postoperative lumpectomy cavity and clips used to guide target volumes. The ideal timing to perform computed tomography (CT)-based treatment planning for this technique is unclear. Prior studies have examined change in volume over time from surgery but not the effect of patient characteristics on lumpectomy cavity volume. We sought to investigate patient and clinical factors that may contribute to larger postsurgical lumpectomy cavities and therefore predict for larger PBI volumes.

Methods

A total of 351 consecutive women with invasive or in situ breast cancer underwent planning CT after breast-conserving surgery at a single institution during 2019 and 2020. Lumpectomy cavities were contoured, and volume was retrospectively computed using the treatment planning system. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between lumpectomy cavity volume and patient and clinical factors.

Results

Median age was 61.0 years (range, 30-91), 23.9% of patients were Black people, 52.1% had hypertension, the median body mass index (BMI) was 30.4 kg/m², 11.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 32.5% were treated prone, mean interval from surgery to CT simulation was 54.1 days ± 45.9, and mean lumpectomy cavity volume was 42.2 cm³ ± 52.0. Longer interval from surgery was significantly associated with smaller lumpectomy cavity volume on univariate analysis, p = 0.048. Race, hypertension, BMI, the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and prone position remained significant on multivariate analysis (p < 0.05 for all). Prone position vs. supine, higher BMI, the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the presence of hypertension, and race (Black people vs. White people) were associated with larger mean lumpectomy cavity volume.

Discussion

These data may be used to select patients for which longer time to simulation may result in smaller lumpectomy cavity volumes and therefore smaller PBI target volumes. Racial disparity in cavity size is not explained by known confounders and may reflect unmeasured systemic determinants of health. Larger datasets and prospective evaluation would be ideal to confirm these hypotheses.

Optimal radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: A network meta-analysis of 23,418 patients

PURPOSE

In order to explore whether partial breast irradiation can replace hypofractionated whole breast irradiation and whether the former two are superior to conventional fractionated whole breast irradiation, we conducted a network meta-analysis based on the data from the latest randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of these radiotherapy modalities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from eligible studies were analyzed to determine the published events for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, distant metastasis, total deaths, and non-breast cancer-related deaths. In the case of low or high heterogeneity, the fixed-effect or random-effect model was used for statistical analysis respectively. NMA was performed by using the node-splitting model for two-category data among three radiotherapies based on a Bayesian method.

RESULTS

A total of 23,418 patients were included in 16 studies. For ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, both pairwise (OR=1.9; CI95%: 1.2 -2.8; p<0.05) and indirect (OR=1.7; CI95%: 1.2 -2.4; p<0.05) comparison of three radiotherapies by network meta-analysis showed that conventional fractionated whole breast irradiation was significantly better than partial breast irradiation. Indirect comparison of three radiotherapies by network meta-analysis showed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation was significantly better than partial breast irradiation (OR=1.6; CI95%: 1.0 -2.5; p<0.05). Network and paired meta-analyses found no significant differences in other endpoints among the three radiotherapies.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this network meta-analysis showed that partial breast irradiation was related to the increase of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence compared with hypofractionated or conventional fractionated whole breast irradiation in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Comparing Hypofractionated With Conventional Fractionated Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy between hypofractionated and conventional fractionation radiotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before February 2021. At the same time, the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate local recurrence (LR), relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and cosmetic outcomes.

Results

A total of 14 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Four thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to the control group to receive conventional radiotherapy (CFRT); 6,072 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT). The results showed that there was no statistical difference between HFRT and CFRT in LR (HR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.97-1.02, p = 0.476), RFS (HR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.97-1.02, p = 0.485), OS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.97-1.03, p = 0.879), and cosmetic outcomes (RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.95-1.12, p = 0.53). In addition, HFRT showed fewer severe adverse reactions such as acute skin toxicity, induration, breast atrophy, and pain.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that there is no statistical difference between HFRT and CFRT in terms of LR, RFS, OS, and cosmetic outcomes. HFRT reduces the risk of developing toxicity reactions compared to CFRT. HFRT may be a better option for patients with early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis: example of hypofractionated radiation therapy in breast and prostate cancer

The aim of this study was to propose a methodology for the assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis. Assessment of hypofractionated RT in prostate and breast cancers is used as an illustrative example. Non-inferiority assessment of an experimental treatment versus an active comparator should rely on two elements: (1) an estimation of experimental treatment’s effect versus the active comparator based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and (2) the value of an objective non-inferiority margin. This margin can be defined using the reported effect of active comparator and the percentage of the active comparator’s effect that is desired to be preserved. Non-inferiority can then be assessed by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of experimental treatment’s effect to the value of the objective non-inferiority margin. Application to hypofractionated RT in breast cancer showed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HWBI) appeared to be non-inferior to conventionally fractionated RT for local recurrence. This was not the case for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Concerning overall survival, non-inferiority could not be claimed for either HWBI or APBI. For prostate cancer, the lack of demonstrated significant superiority of conventional RT versus no RT precluded any conclusion regarding non-inferiority of hypofractionated RT.

Temporal impact of the publication of guidelines and randomised evidence on the adoption of hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Clinical data supporting the use of hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (HF-WBRT) in early-stage breast cancer patients have accumulated over the last decade. Despite the availability of the published evidence, the adoption rate of HF-WBRT has been slower-than-expected. We sought to assess the temporal impact of the publication of the guidelines and randomised evidence on the practice pattern of HF-WBRT and identify clinical predictors of its utilisation.

METHODS

Women with early-stage breast cancer who received adjuvant WBRT at Canberra Health Services between 2008 and 2016 were identified from clinical databases. The patterns of HF-WBRT use were analysed in relation to pre-specified time periods (before and after the guideline publications) in the entire cohort as well as in a patient subset fulfilling the criteria for HF-WBRT according to the guidelines (referred to as 'guideline-endorsed subset'). The impact of clinical variables, treating clinicians and the time periods on the adoption of HF-WBRT was assessed by hierarchical multivariate logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Of the entire cohort (n = 1171), the guideline-endorsed subset constituted 51.6% (n = 604) of the patients. HF-WBRT was utilised in 32.8% of the entire cohort and 46.2% of the guideline-endorsed subset. Between 2008 and 2016, HF-WBRT use rate increased from 12.1% to 56.6% in a non-linear pattern. Release of international and local consensus guidelines significantly correlated with the increase in HF-WBRT utilisation rate. The use of chemotherapy and/or tumour bed boost radiotherapy (TBBR), chest wall sepJMIROtion distance (CWSD) and patient age were significant predictors of HF-WBRT use on multivariate analyses. After factoring in the effects of individual clinicians and the time periods on hierarchical multivariate analyses, the use of chemotherapy, TBBR, and CWSD remained as significant variables. Clinicians contributed to the variability in the HF-WBRT adoption pattern.

CONCLUSION

The temporal uptake pattern and the predictors of adjuvant HF-WBRT use in early breast cancer patients largely reflected the accumulating clinical evidence and the publication of the consensus guidelines. This study identified potentially modifiable factors associated with slower-than-expected uptake rate of HF-WBRT. Understanding why there is variability in clinicians' readiness to adopt the abbreviated treatment despite the availability of advanced radiotherapy techniques and the updated evidence is an important step towards formulating effective strategies to optimise the radiotherapeutic management of this common malignancy.

Evolution of radiotherapy techniques in breast conservation treatment

Radiation therapy (RT) is an important component of breast cancer treatment that reduces local recurrence and improves survival after breast conservation. Breast conservation rates have increased significantly since the late 1980s and techniques have improved with greater awareness of the impact of radiation on the heart. An overview of randomized controlled trials of breast conservation using standard whole breast irradiation, whole breast hypofractionation, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and intraoperative radiation are reviewed. Selection criteria for breast conservation and the utility of adding a boost dose to the primary tumor site are reviewed. Modern dose constraints are documented and 10 different radiation techniques from the 1980s through to modern volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are compared for a patient where the breast and internal mammary nodes are treated. A radiation boost reduces the risk of a recurrence for most, but not all patients. Short courses of RT over 3-4 weeks are generally as effective as longer courses. Short-term follow-up of trials of APBI show promise for selected good prognosis subgroups. The role of intraoperative radiation remains controversial. In the last 30 years, there have been significant advances in radiation techniques. Modern radiotherapy equipment and techniques will reduce complications and improve survival rates.

Utilization of hypofractionated whole-breast radiation therapy in patients receiving chemotherapy: a National Cancer Database analysis

PURPOSE

Results from four major hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (HF-WBRT) trials have demonstrated equivalence in select patients with early-stage breast cancer when compared with conventionally fractionated WBRT (CF-WBRT). Because relatively little data were available on patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, consensus guidelines published in 2011 did not endorse the use of HF-WBRT in this population. Our goal is to evaluate trends in utilization of HF-WBRT in patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 2004 to 2013 in the National Cancer DataBase on breast cancer patients treated with HF-WBRT who met the clinical criteria proposed by consensus guidelines (i.e., age >0 years, T1-2N0, and breast-conserving surgery), regardless of receipt of chemotherapy. We employed logistic regression to delineate and compare clinical and demographic factors associated with utilization of HF-WBRT and CF-WBRT.

RESULTS

A total of 56,836 women were treated with chemotherapy and WBRT (without regional nodal irradiation) from 2004 to 2013; 9.0% (n = 5093) were treated with HF-WBRT. Utilization of HF-WBRT increased from 4.6% in 2004 to 18.2% in 2013 (odds ratio [OR] 1.21/year; P < 0.001). Among patients receiving chemotherapy, factors most dramatically associated with increased odds of receiving HF-WBRT on multivariate analysis were academic facilities (OR 2.07; P < 0.001), age >80 (OR 2.58; P < 0.001), west region (OR 1.91; P < 0.001), and distance >50 miles from cancer reporting facility (OR 1.43; P < 0.001). Factors associated with decreased odds of receiving HF-WBRT included white race, income <$48,000, lack of private insurance, T2 versus T1, and higher grade (all P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the absence of consensus guideline recommendations, the use of HF-WBRT in patients receiving chemotherapy has increased fourfold (absolute = 13.6%) over the last decade. Increased utilization of HF-WBRT should result in institutional reports verifying its safety and efficacy.

Hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy in breast conservation for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) for early-stage breast cancer involves lumpectomy followed by whole breast radiotherapy, which can involve either standard fractionation (SRT) or accelerated fractionation (ART). This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine whether any benefit exists for ART or SRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2014), all seven databases of the Cochrane Library (1968-2014), EMBASE (1974-2014), clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN, WHO ICTRP, and meeting abstracts in the Web of Science Core Collection (1900-2014). RCTs comparing SRT to ART among women undergoing BCT with stage T1-T2 and/or N1 breast cancer or carcinoma in situ were included. Follow-up was 30 days for acute toxicity, or three years for disease control and late toxicity.

RESULTS

13 trials with 8189 participants were included. No differences were observed in local failure (n = 7 trials; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78-1.19, I ² = 0%), locoregional failure, (n = 8 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63-1.16, I ² = 0%), or survival (n = 4 trials; RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.85-1.17, I ² = 0%). ART was associated with significantly less acute toxicity (n = 5 trials; RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.62, I ² = 20%), but no difference in late cosmesis (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.81-1.12, I ² = 54%).

CONCLUSIONS

ART use does not reduce disease control or worsen long-term cosmetic outcome, and may decrease the risk of acute radiation toxicity as compared to SRT.

Fraction size in radiation therapy for breast conservation in early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Shortening the duration of radiation therapy would benefit women with early breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery. It may also improve access to radiation therapy by improving efficiency in radiation oncology departments globally. This can only happen if the shorter treatment is as effective and safe as conventional radiation therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of altered radiation fraction size for women with early breast cancer who have had breast conserving surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register (23 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Jan 1996 to May 2015), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to May 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (June 2010 to May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 April 2015), reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. No language or publication constraints were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of altered fraction size versus conventional fractionation for radiation therapy in women with early breast cancer who had undergone breast conserving surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors performed data extraction independently, with disagreements resolved by discussion. We sought missing data from trial authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We studied 8228 women in nine studies. Eight out of nine studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. Altered fraction size (delivering radiation therapy in larger amounts each day but over fewer days than with conventional fractionation) did not have a clinically meaningful effect on: local recurrence-free survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15, 7095 women, four studies, high-quality evidence), cosmetic outcome (Risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.01, 2103 women, four studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03, 5685 women, three studies, high-quality evidence). Acute radiation skin toxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.45, 357 women, two studies) was reduced with altered fraction size. Late radiation subcutaneous toxicity did not differ with altered fraction size (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05, 5130 women, four studies, high-quality evidence). Breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 5685 women, three studies, high quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.05, 5685 women, three studies, moderate-quality evidence) did not differ with altered fraction size. We found no data for mastectomy rate. Altered fraction size was associated with less patient-reported (P < 0.001) and physician-reported (P = 0.009) fatigue at six months (287 women, one study). We found no difference in the issue of altered fractionation for patient-reported outcomes of: physical well-being (P = 0.46), functional well-being (P = 0.38), emotional well-being (P = 0.58), social well-being (P = 0.32), breast cancer concerns (P = 0.94; 287 women, one study). We found no data with respect to costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that using altered fraction size regimens (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) does not have a clinically meaningful effect on local recurrence, is associated with decreased acute toxicity and does not seem to affect breast appearance, late toxicity or patient-reported quality-of-life measures for selected women treated with breast conserving therapy. These are mostly women with node negative tumours smaller than 3 cm and negative pathological margins.

Use of hypofractionated post-mastectomy radiotherapy reduces health costs by over $2000 per patient: An Australian perspective

INTRODUCTION

The most recent clinical practice guidelines released by Cancer Australia draw attention to unanswered questions concerning the health economic considerations associated with hypofractionated radiotherapy. This study aimed to quantify and compare the healthcare costs at a regional Australian radiotherapy institute with respect to conventionally fractionated post-mastectomy radiotherapy (Cf-PMRT) versus hypofractionated post-mastectomy radiotherapy (Hf-PMRT) administration.

METHODS

Medical records of 196 patients treated with post-mastectomy radiotherapy at the NSW North Coast Cancer Institute from February 2008 to June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Australian Medicare item numbers billed for patients receiving either Cf-PMRT of 50 Gy in 25 daily fractions or Hf-PMRT of 40.05 Gy in 15 daily fractions were calculated. Decision tree analysis was used to model costs. Independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare crude average costs for Cf-PMRT and Hf-PMRT and determine which treatment components accounted for any differences.

RESULTS

Hf-PMRT, with or without irradiation to the regional lymph nodes, was associated with significantly reduced Medicare costs ($5613 AUD per patient for Hf-PMRT vs $8272 AUD per patient for Cf-PMRT; P < 0.001). Savings associated with Hf-PMRT ranged from $1353 (22.1%) for patients receiving no regional irradiation to $2898 (32.0%) for patients receiving both axillary and supraclavicular therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hf-PMRT results in a significant reduction in the financial costs associated with treating breast cancer patients in a regional Australian setting when compared with Cf-PMRT.

The role of boost and hypofractionation as adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with DCIS: a meta-analysis of observational studies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to summarize the current evidence on the role of boost and the efficacy of hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) after surgery and grade the quality of evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive systematic electronic search through MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library as well as through the major international congresses' proceedings was conducted. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the efficacy of hypofractionated vs. standard radiotherapy or the efficacy of boost vs. no boost in patients with DCIS. The outcome of interest was the number of local recurrences. Pooled estimates were calculated by using standard meta-analytic procedures.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were considered eligible and were further analyzed. No difference in the risk of local recurrence was observed between the patients that received boost vs. no boost in the general cohort (12 studies, 6943 patients; Odds Ratio (OR): 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-1.08, very low level of evidence). However, we found a reduced risk for local recurrence when boost was administered in patients with positive margins compared to no boost (6 studies, 811 patients; OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.87, very low level of evidence). No difference in local recurrence rate between patients who received hypofractionated versus standard radiotherapy was observed (4 studies, 2534 patients; OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.58-1.03, low level of evidence).

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionated radiotherapy seems to be a safe option in patients with DCIS after breast-conserving surgery while the addition of boost reduces the risk for local recurrence in the presence of positive margins. However, the level of evidence for these observations ranges between very low and low and the results of the ongoing randomized trials are necessary to confirm the results with higher level of evidence.

Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials

BACKGROUND

After breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy reduces recurrence and breast cancer death, but it may do so more for some groups of women than for others. We describe the absolute magnitude of these reductions according to various prognostic and other patient characteristics, and relate the absolute reduction in 15-year risk of breast cancer death to the absolute reduction in 10-year recurrence risk.

METHODS

We undertook a meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials of radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery, 8337 of whom had pathologically confirmed node-negative (pN0) or node-positive (pN+) disease.

FINDINGS

Overall, radiotherapy reduced the 10-year risk of any (ie, locoregional or distant) first recurrence from 35·0% to 19·3% (absolute reduction 15·7%, 95% CI 13·7-17·7, 2p<0·00001) and reduced the 15-year risk of breast cancer death from 25·2% to 21·4% (absolute reduction 3·8%, 1·6-6·0, 2p=0·00005). In women with pN0 disease (n=7287), radiotherapy reduced these risks from 31·0% to 15·6% (absolute recurrence reduction 15·4%, 13·2-17·6, 2p<0·00001) and from 20·5% to 17·2% (absolute mortality reduction 3·3%, 0·8-5·8, 2p=0·005), respectively. In these women with pN0 disease, the absolute recurrence reduction varied according to age, grade, oestrogen-receptor status, tamoxifen use, and extent of surgery, and these characteristics were used to predict large (≥20%), intermediate (10-19%), or lower (<10%) absolute reductions in the 10-year recurrence risk. Absolute reductions in 15-year risk of breast cancer death in these three prediction categories were 7·8% (95% CI 3·1-12·5), 1·1% (-2·0 to 4·2), and 0·1% (-7·5 to 7·7) respectively (trend in absolute mortality reduction 2p=0·03). In the few women with pN+ disease (n=1050), radiotherapy reduced the 10-year recurrence risk from 63·7% to 42·5% (absolute reduction 21·2%, 95% CI 14·5-27·9, 2p<0·00001) and the 15-year risk of breast cancer death from 51·3% to 42·8% (absolute reduction 8·5%, 1·8-15·2, 2p=0·01). Overall, about one breast cancer death was avoided by year 15 for every four recurrences avoided by year 10, and the mortality reduction did not differ significantly from this overall relationship in any of the three prediction categories for pN0 disease or for pN+ disease.

INTERPRETATION

After breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy to the conserved breast halves the rate at which the disease recurs and reduces the breast cancer death rate by about a sixth. These proportional benefits vary little between different groups of women. By contrast, the absolute benefits from radiotherapy vary substantially according to the characteristics of the patient and they can be predicted at the time when treatment decisions need to be made.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, and UK Medical Research Council.