Examining Determinants of Radiotherapy Access: Do Cost and Radiotherapy Inconvenience Affect Uptake of Breast-conserving Treatment for Early Breast Cancer?

Introduction of ultra-hypofractionation in breast cancer: Implications for costs and resource use

PURPOSE

A shift towards (ultra-)hypofractionated breast irradiation can have important implications for the practice of contemporary radiation oncology. This paper presents a systematic analysis of the impact of different fractionation schedules on multiple key performance indicators, namely resource use, costs, work times, throughput and waiting times.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) is applied to calculate the costs and resources consumed where the perspective of the radiotherapy department in adopted. Three fractionation regimens are considered: ultra-hypofractionation (5 x 5.2 Gy, UHF), moderate hypofractionation (15 x 2.67 Gy, HF) and conventional fractionation (25 x 2 Gy, CF). Subsequently, a discrete event simulation (DES) model of the radiotherapy care pathway is developed and scenarios are compared in which the following factors are varied: distribution of fractionation regimens, patient volume and operating hours.

RESULTS

The application of (U)HF can permit radiotherapy departments to reduce the use of scarce resources, realise work time and cost savings, increase throughput and reduce waiting times. The financial advantages of (U)HF are, however, reduced in cases of excess capacity and cost savings may therefore be limited in the short-term. Moreover, although an extension of operating hours has favourable effects on throughput and waiting times, it may also reduce cost differences between fractionation schedules by increasing the capacity of resources.

CONCLUSION

By providing an in-depth analysis of the consequences associated with a shift towards (U)HF in breast cancer, the present study demonstrates how a DES model based on TD-ABC costing can assist radiotherapy professionals in making data-driven decisions.

Development and implementation barriers of a new patient-reported measure: The Radiation therapy-related Inconvenience Questionnaire (RIQ)

INTRODUCTION

Radiation therapy (RT) can benefit approximately 50% of cancer patients and contribute to 40% of all cancer cures, yet its utilisation in cancer is low globally. Several factors contribute to this including perceived inconvenience related to accessing and utilising RT. To quantitatively assess the latter, a new tool - the Radiation therapy-related Inconvenience Questionnaire (RIQ) - was developed. This study aimed to pre-test the RIQ and explore barriers and facilitators to implementing it in routine clinical practice and clinical trials.

METHODS

Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with patients undertaking RT, recruited via three hospitals to examine content validity, acceptability, and comprehensibility of the RIQ. Interviews identified inconsistencies, relevance, and clarity of items. Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of care to individuals undertaking RT explored barriers and facilitators to routine usage. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 15) identified problems in content, instructions, layout, length, and response options; consequently, 25 items were revised and eight removed, resulting in a final 29-item questionnaire. Clinicians identified staff- and patient-specific barriers to implementing RIQ in clinical practice. Perceived facilitators included the following: (a) workplace factors, (b) mode of administration, and (c) imparting knowledge.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated acceptability and comprehensibility of the 29-item RIQ amongst cancer patients undertaking RT and treating clinicians. The next phase will evaluate the RIQ's measurement properties in a larger clinical study. The barriers and facilitators identified can guide future implementation of RIQ in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Recent Advances in Optimizing Radiation Therapy Decisions in Early Invasive Breast Cancer

Adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is a well-established treatment standard for early invasive breast cancer. Screening, early diagnosis, refinement in surgical techniques, the knowledge of new and specific molecular prognostic factors, and now the standard use of more effective neo/adjuvant systemic therapies have proven instrumental in reducing the rates of locoregional relapses. This underscores the need for reliably identifying women with such low-risk disease burdens in whom elimination of radiation from the treatment plan would not compromise oncological safety. This review summarizes the current evidence for radiation de-intensification strategies and details ongoing prospective clinical trials investigating the omission of adjuvant whole breast irradiation in molecularly defined low-risk breast cancers and related evidence supporting the potential for radiation de-escalation in HER2+ and triple-negative clinical subtypes. Furthermore, we discuss the current evidence for the de-escalation of regional nodal irradiation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Finally, we also detail the current knowledge of the clinical value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and liquid-based biomarkers as prognostic factors for locoregional relapse.

Cosmetic Results and Side Effects of Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation Versus Whole-Breast Irradiation for Low-Risk Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast: The Randomized Phase III IRMA Trial

PURPOSE

The results in terms of side effects vary among the published accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) studies. Here, we report the 5-year results for cosmetic outcomes and toxicity of the IRMA trial.

METHODS

We ran this randomized phase III trial in 35 centers. Women with stage I-IIA breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, age ≥ 49 years, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either whole-breast irradiation (WBI) or external beam radiation therapy APBI (38.5 Gy/10 fraction twice daily). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary end point was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. We hereby present the analysis of the secondary outcomes, cosmesis, and normal tissue toxicity. All side effects were graded with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiation Morbidity Scoring Schema. Analysis was performed with both intention-to-treat and as-treated approaches.

RESULTS

Between March 2007 and March 2019, 3,309 patients were randomly assigned to 1,657 WBI and 1,652 APBI; 3,225 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population (1,623 WBI and 1,602 APBI). At a median follow-up of 5.6 (interquartile range, 4.0-8.4) years, adverse cosmesis in the APBI patients was higher than that in the WBI patients at 3 years (12.7% v 9.2%; P = .009) and at 5 years (14% v 9.8%; P = .012). Late soft tissue toxicity (grade ≥ 3: 2.8% APBI v 1% WBI, P < .0001) and late bone toxicity (grade ≥ 3: 1.1% APBI v 0% WBI, P < .0001) were significantly higher in the APBI arm. There were no significant differences in late skin and lung toxicities.

CONCLUSION

External beam radiation therapy-APBI with a twice-daily IRMA schedule was associated with increased rates of late moderate soft tissue and bone toxicities, with a slight decrease in patient-reported cosmetic outcomes at 5 years when compared with WBI, although overall toxicity was in an acceptable range.

HYPORT adjuvant acute toxicity and patient dosimetry quality assurance results - Interim analysis

BACKGROUND

HYPORT adjuvant trial is a randomised phase III open-label noninferiority trial comparing standard moderately hypofractionated 3 week adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer with a novel 1-week schedule. The trial was initiated in March 2019 and is open to recruitment with a total sample size of 2100. We report the results of dosimetric quality assurance, acute toxicity and pre planned first interim safety analysis in the first 271 patients.

METHODS

Stage I-III breast cancer planned for adjuvant radiation therapy to the breast/chest-wall (along with regional nodes as indicated) were randomised to receive 40 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks or 26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week. For simultaneous integrated boost, the patients in the control arm received 8 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks, while those in the experimental arm received 6 Gy/5 fractions/1 week (to the tumour bed). For sequential boost, the prescribed dose was 12 Gy/4 fractions/4 days in both arms. Compliance to pre specified dosimetric parameters and acute toxicities were evaluated.

RESULT

Data of the first 271 patients was analysed of whom 104 patients received tumour bed boost using SIB. All mandatory dosimetric criteria were met apart from one patient with a higher contralateral breast dose due to optimal internal mammary nodal coverage. Overall three patients (1.1%) experienced grade 3 radiation dermatitis (none received SIB), no other Grade 3 or higher toxicities reported.

CONCLUSION

This acute toxicity interim analysis demonstrates that hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy with SIB for patients with breast cancer is feasible, and associated with minimal severe acute toxicities.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Breast Cancer Surgery and the Cost Based on Data From 77 Chinese 3A Hospitals in 2015

Purposes

We aimed to clarify the real-world status of breast cancer surgery and the cost in China.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey relied on data obtained from the hospitalization summary reports (HSRs) in 77 top-ranked (grade 3A) hospitals in China to analyze breast cancer patients who underwent surgery between January 2015 and December 2015. The surgery and cost were mainly evaluated.

Results

Overall, 31,900 breast cancer patients underwent surgeries in 77 hospitals. The mean age in our study was 51.5 years (SD, 11.7 years). The primary types of surgical procedures were mastectomy (n = 24,629, 77.2%) and breast-conserving surgery (6,210, 19.5%). The rate of mastectomy was the highest at age band 50-65 years (n = 10,861, 82.1%) and in non-first-tier cities (n = 7,651, 88.4%) as well as in Northeast China (n = 3,107, 93.2%). The rate of breast-conserving surgery was less than 10% in non-first-tier cities (9.8%), Southwest China (6.1%), and Northeast China (5.8%). The median cost was $3,352.4 (interquartile range (IQR), $2,492.6-4,588.0). Mastectomy cost was significantly higher than breast-conserving surgery cost in both different city tiers and regional distribution except Northeast China (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the main breast cancer surgery in Chinese 3A hospitals was mastectomy and that the cost varied both across and within geographic regions and city tiers. This information helps describe the real-world status of breast surgery and the cost in China.

Combined Photothermal and Ionizing Radiation Sensitization of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Using Triangular Silver Nanoparticles

Background

Ionizing radiation (IR) is commonly used in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treatment regimens. However, off-target toxicity affecting normal tissue and grueling treatment regimens remain major limitations. Hyperthermia is one of the greatest IR sensitizers, but only if heat is administered simultaneously or immediately prior to ionizing radiation. Difficulty in co-localizing ionizing radiation (IR) in rapid succession with hyperthermia, and confining treatment to the tumor have hindered widespread clinical adoption of combined thermoradiation treatment. Metal nanoparticle-based approaches to IR sensitization and photothermal heat generation may aid in overcoming these issues and improve treatment specificity.

Methods

We assessed the potential to selectively treat MDA-MB-231 TNBC cells without affecting non-malignant MCF-10A breast cells using a multimodal approach based upon combined photothermal therapy, IR sensitization, and specific cytotoxicity using triangular silver nanoparticles (TAgNPs) with peak absorbance in the near-infrared light (NIR) spectrum.

Results

We found that TAgNP-mediated photothermal therapy and radiosensitization offer a high degree of specificity for treatment of TNBC without affecting non-malignant mammary epithelial cells.

Discussion

If given at a high enough dose, IR, heat, or TAgNPs alone could be sufficient for tumor treatment. However, when the dose of one or all of these modalities increases, off-target effects also increase. The challenge lies in identifying the minimal doses of each individual treatment such that when combined they provide maximum selectivity for treatment of TNBC cells with minimum off-target effects on non-malignant breast cells. Our results provide proof of concept that this combination is highly selective for TNBC cells while sparing non-malignant mammary epithelial cells. This treatment would be particularly important for patients undergoing breast conservation therapy and for treatment of invasive tumor margins near the periphery where each individual treatment might be at a sub-therapeutic level.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane libraries was performed according to the PRISMA statement the last 10 years to April 7, 2020 to identify the randomized controlled trials of APBI versus WBI for treating patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two independent observers evaluated the identified studies. The obtained data were analyzed using the RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 15,500 patients with early-stage breast cancer were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and included in this meta-analysis. In this meta-analysis, we included ten studies that reported local recurrence and found significant differences in local recurrence rates (HR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.79, P = 0.0002). Further analysis showed that this difference may be related to the choice of treatment methods. No differences in distant metastasis, breast cancer deaths, contralateral breast cancer, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were observed between WBI and APBI groups. There was no significant difference in late toxicity, cosmetic outcomes and quality of life between the two groups, the compliance and tolerance of the patients were well. Compared to whole breast irradiation, accelerated partial breast irradiation significantly reduced serious (≥ grade 2) early toxicities, especially regarding acute skin toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis showed that patients receiving APBI had a higher local recurrence rate, but no differences in distant metastasis, breast cancer deaths, contralateral breast cancer, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates.

Hypofractionated radiation therapy comparing a standard radiotherapy schedule (over 3 weeks) with a novel 1-week schedule in adjuvant breast cancer: an open-label randomized controlled study (HYPORT-Adjuvant)-study protocol for a multicentre, randomized phase III trial

Background

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is the current standard for adjuvant radiotherapy across many centres. Further hypofractionation may be possible but remains to be investigated in non-Caucasian populations with more advanced disease, with a higher proportion of patients requiring mastectomy as well as tumour bed boost. We are reporting the design of randomized controlled trial testing the hypothesis that a 1-week (5 fractions) regimen of radiotherapy will be non-inferior to a standard 3-week (15 fractions) schedule.

Methods

We describe a multicentre, randomized controlled trial recruiting patients at large academic centres across India. Patients without distant metastases who merit adjuvant radiotherapy will be eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients in the control arm will receive adjuvant radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall (with/without regional nodes) to a dose of 40 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks, while those in the experimental arm will receive a dose of 26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week (to the same volume). The use of a simultaneous integrated boost (dose of 8 Gy and 6 Gy, respectively) is allowed in patients who have undergone breast conservation. A sample size of 2100 patients provides an 80% power to detect a non-inferiority of 3% in the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate with a one-sided type I error of 2.5%, assuming that the locoregional recurrence rate in the control arm is 5% at 5 years (corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.63). Patients will be recruited over a period of 5 years and followed up for a further 5 years thereafter.

Discussion

If a five-fraction regimen of breast cancer is proven to be non-inferior, this will result in a significant improvement in the access to radiotherapy, as well as reduced costs of treatment. The trial gives an opportunity to standardize and quality-assure radiotherapy practices across the nation at the same time. Along with the results of the FAST-Forward trial, the safety of this intervention in advanced node-positive disease requiring regional nodal radiation will be established.

Trial registration

The trial has been registered at the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) vide registration number: CTRI/2018/12/016816 (December 31, 2018) as well as the ClinicalTrial.gov website at NCT03788213 (December 28, 2018).

Long-term primary results of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: a randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial

BACKGROUND

Whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast-tumour recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. It is unknown whether accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) to only the tumour-bearing quadrant, which shortens treatment duration, is equally effective. In our trial, we investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lumpectomy compared with whole-breast irradiation.

METHODS

We did this randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial (NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413) in 154 clinical centres in the USA, Canada, Ireland, and Israel. Adult women (>18 years) with early-stage (0, I, or II; no evidence of distant metastases, but up to three axillary nodes could be positive) breast cancer (tumour size ≤3 cm; including all histologies and multifocal breast cancers), who had had lumpectomy with negative (ie, no detectable cancer cells) surgical margins, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a biased-coin-based minimisation algorithm to receive either whole-breast irradiation (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group). Whole-breast irradiation was delivered in 25 daily fractions of 50 Gy over 5 weeks, with or without a supplemental boost to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 34 Gy of brachytherapy or 38·5 Gy of external bream radiation therapy in 10 fractions, over 5 treatment days within an 8-day period. Randomisation was stratified by disease stage, menopausal status, hormone-receptor status, and intention to receive chemotherapy. Patients, investigators, and statisticians could not be masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of invasive and non-invasive IBTR as a first recurrence was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, excluding those patients who were lost to follow-up, with an equivalency test on the basis of a 50% margin increase in the hazard ratio (90% CI for the observed HR between 0·667 and 1·5 for equivalence) and a Cox proportional hazard model. Survival was assessed by intention to treat, and sensitivity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00103181.

FINDINGS

Between March 21, 2005, and April 16, 2013, 4216 women were enrolled. 2109 were assigned to the whole-breast irradiation group and 2107 were assigned to the APBI group. 70 patients from the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 from the APBI group withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up at this stage, so 2039 and 2093 patients respectively were available for survival analysis. Further, three and four patients respectively were lost to clinical follow-up (ie, survival status was assessed by phone but no physical examination was done), leaving 2036 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome. At a median follow-up of 10·2 years (IQR 7·5-11·5), 90 (4%) of 2089 women eligible for the primary outcome in the APBI group and 71 (3%) of 2036 women in the whole-breast irradiation group had an IBTR (HR 1·22, 90% CI 0·94-1·58). The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 4·6% (95% CI 3·7-5·7) in the APBI group versus 3·9% (3·1-5·0) in the whole-breast irradiation group. 44 (2%) of 2039 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 49 (2%) of 2093 patients in the APBI group died from recurring breast cancer. There were no treatment-related deaths. Second cancers and treatment-related toxicities were similar between the two groups. 2020 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in APBI group had available data on adverse events. The highest toxicity grade reported was: grade 1 in 845 (40%), grade 2 in 921 (44%), and grade 3 in 201 (10%) patients in the APBI group, compared with grade 1 in 626 (31%), grade 2 in 1193 (59%), and grade 3 in 143 (7%) in the whole-breast irradiation group.

INTERPRETATION

APBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to whole-breast irradiation in controlling IBTR for breast-conserving therapy. Our trial had broad eligibility criteria, leading to a large, heterogeneous pool of patients and sufficient power to detect treatment equivalence, but was not designed to test equivalence in patient subgroups or outcomes from different APBI techniques. For patients with early-stage breast cancer, our findings support whole-breast irradiation following lumpectomy; however, with an absolute difference of less than 1% in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some women.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services.

Daily Fractionation of External Beam Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation to 40 Gy Is Well Tolerated and Locally Effective

PURPOSE

Most studies examining accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) have used twice-daily fractionation. Cosmesis with this approach has produced mixed results, and the optimal fractionation scheme remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of APBI with a total dose of 40 Gy in 10 daily fractions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2010 and 2014, we prospectively enrolled 106 patients to receive APBI after lumpectomy for invasive or in situ node-negative breast cancer. Radiation was administered via 3-dimensional conformal techniques.

RESULTS

The median age was 62 years (range, 39-85), and all patients underwent APBI per protocol. With a median follow-up of 58 months, we evaluated patient-reported local toxicity and recurrence outcomes. Of 106 patients, 16 (15%) experienced grade ≥2 skin toxicity. The most common significant toxicities were acute cutaneous changes at 4 to 9 weeks after radiation therapy, including grade 2 erythema in 2 patients (1.8%) and skin color changes in 4 patients (3.8%). Only 2 instances of grade 3 toxicity were reported, including 1 patient with acute moist desquamation after radiation therapy and another with fibrosis at 2 years. Planning target volume and breast V₂₀ were significantly predictive of skin/subcutaneous toxicity, with evidence that limiting breast V₂₀ to <45% may improve tolerability. Overall, 3 breast cancer recurrences arose: 1 local recurrence in the original quadrant (3 years after APBI), 1 in a different ipsilateral quadrant (5 years after APBI), and 1 with distant disease 2 years after APBI.

CONCLUSIONS

In an appropriately selected group of patients with early stage breast cancer, APBI to a dose of 40 Gy in 10 daily fractions was well tolerated, with most patients (99%) reporting excellent/good cosmesis. Planning target volume and breast V₂₀ should be carefully constrained to limit local morbidity. Longer follow-up will be needed to establish efficacy and subsequent local recurrence rates.

Dosimetric evaluation and systematic review of radiation therapy techniques for early stage node-negative breast cancer treatment

Radiation therapy (RT) is essential in treating women with early stage breast cancer. Early stage node-negative breast cancer (ESNNBC) offers a good prognosis; hence, late effects of breast RT becomes increasingly important. Recent literature suggests a potential for an increase in cardiac and pulmonary events after RT. However, these studies have not taken into account the impact of newer and current RT techniques that are now available. Hence, this review aimed to evaluate the clinical evidence for each technique and determine the optimal radiation technique for ESNNBC treatment. Currently, six RT techniques are consistently used and studied: 1) prone positioning, 2) proton beam RT, 3) intensity-modulated RT, 4) breath-hold, 5) partial breast irradiation, and 6) intraoperative RT. These techniques show dosimetric promise. However, limited data on late cardiac and pulmonary events exist due to challenges in long-term follow-up. Moving forward, future studies are needed to validate the efficacy and clinical outcomes of these current techniques.

Variations in outcomes by residential location for women with breast cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the evidence for variations in outcomes at each step along the breast cancer continuum of care for Australian women by residential location.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1 January 1990 to 24 November 2017 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult female patients with breast cancer; Australian setting; outcome measure was survival, patient or tumour characteristics, screening rates or frequencies, clinical management, patterns of initial care or post-treatment follow-up with analysis by residential location or studies involving non-metropolitan women only. Included studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seventy-four quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 59% were considered high quality, 34% moderate and 7% low. No eligible studies examining treatment choices or post-treatment follow-up were identified. Non-metropolitan women consistently had poorer survival, with most of this differential being attributed to more advanced disease at diagnosis, treatment-related factors and socioeconomic disadvantage. Compared with metropolitan women, non-metropolitan women were more likely to live in disadvantaged areas and had differing clinical management and patterns of care. However, findings regarding geographical variations in tumour characteristics or diagnostic outcomes were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

A general pattern of poorer survival and variations in clinical management for Australian female patients with breast cancer from non-metropolitan areas was evident. However, the wide variability in data sources, measures, study quality, time periods and geographical classification made direct comparisons across studies challenging. The review highlighted the need to promote standardisation of geographical classifications and increased comparability of data systems. It also identified key gaps in the existing literature including a lack of studies on advanced breast cancer, geographical variations in treatment choices from the perspective of patients and post-treatment follow-up.

Influence of socioeconomic factors and distance to radiotherapy on breast-conserving surgery rates for early breast cancer in regional Australia; implications of change

AIMS

Breast conserving surgery rates are affected by many factors including distance to radiotherapy and tumor-related features. Numerous studies have found women who must travel further for radiotherapy are more likely to choose mastectomy and avoid radiotherapy. We examined relationships between socioeconomic group, distance to radiotherapy services and mastectomy rates across a range of rural and metropolitan settings.

METHODS

We used a dataset extracted from the Evaluation of Cancer Outcomes Barwon South Western Registry, which captured data on new breast cancer diagnoses in the southwest region of Victoria, Australia. Using logistic regression, we modeled treatment choice of women with early breast cancer (mastectomy vs breast conserving surgery) using explanatory variables that included distance to radiotherapy, and area-level socioeconomic data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, while controlling for clinical factors.

RESULTS

Mastectomy was associated with tumor size, nodal burden and younger age at surgery. Distance to a radiotherapy center was also strongly associated with increased rates of mastectomy for women who traveled 100-200 km for radiotherapy (odds ratio = 1.663; P = 0.03) compared to the reference group who were within 100 km of radiotherapy. No socioeconomic differences were seen between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A strong association between distance to radiotherapy and the type of surgery for early breast cancer was found. Improving access to radiotherapy therefore has the potential to improve breast cancer outcomes for women in regional Australia.

Are Patients Traveling for Intraoperative Radiation Therapy?

Purpose

One benefit of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is that it usually requires a single treatment, thus potentially eliminating distance as a barrier to receipt of whole breast irradiation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distance traveled by IORT patients at our institution.

Methods

Our institutional prospective registry was used to identify IORT patients from 10/2011 to 2/2017. Patient's home zip code was compared to institution zip code to determine travel distance. Characteristics of local (<50 miles), regional (50-100 miles), and faraway (>100 miles) patients were compared.

Results

150 were patients included with a median travel distance of 27 miles and mean travel distance of 121 miles. Most were local (68.7%), with the second largest group living faraway (20.0%). Subset analysis of local patients demonstrated 20.4% traveled <10 miles, 34.0% traveled 10-20 miles, and 45.6% traveled 20-50 miles. Six patients traveled >1000 miles. The local, regional, and faraway patients did not differ with respect to age, race, tumor characteristics, or whole breast irradiation.

Conclusions

Breast cancer patients are traveling for IORT, with 63% traveling >20 miles for care. IORT is an excellent strategy to promote breast conservation in selected patients, particularly those who live remote from a radiation facility.

What might explain deprivation-specific differences in the excess hazard of breast cancer death amongst screen-detected women? Analysis of patients diagnosed in the West Midlands region of England from 1989 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survival is higher in less deprived women, even amongst women whose tumor was screen-detected, but reasons behind this have not been comprehensively investigated.

METHODS

The excess hazard of breast cancer death in 20,265 women diagnosed with breast cancer, followed up to 2012, was estimated for screen-detected and non-screen-detected women, comparing more deprived to less deprived women using flexible parametric models. Models were adjusted for individual and tumor factors, treatment received and comorbidity. For screen-detected women, estimates were also corrected for lead-time and overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

The excess hazard ratio (EHR) of breast cancer death in the most deprived group, adjusted only for age and year of diagnosis, was twice that of the least deprived among screen-detected women (EHR=2.12, 95%CI 1.48-2.76) and 64% higher among non-screen-detected women (EHR=1.64, 95%CI 1.41-1.87). Adjustment for stage at diagnosis lowered these estimates by 25%. Further adjustment had little extra impact. In the final models, the excess hazard for the most deprived women was 54% higher (EHR=1.54, 95%CI 1.10-1.98) among screen-detected women and 39% higher (EHR=1.39, 95%CI 1.20-1.59) among non-screen-detected women.

CONCLUSION

A persistent socio-economic gradient in breast cancer-related death exists in this cohort, even for screen-detected women. The impact of differential lifestyles, management and treatment warrant further investigation.

Geographical Inequalities in Surgical Treatment for Localized Female Breast Cancer, Queensland, Australia 1997-2011: Improvements over Time but Inequalities Remain

The uptake of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for early stage breast cancer varies by where women live. We investigate whether these geographical patterns have changed over time using population-based data linkage between cancer registry records and hospital inpatient episodes. The study cohort consisted of 11,631 women aged 20 years and over diagnosed with a single primary invasive localised breast cancer between 1997 and 2011 in Queensland, Australia who underwent either BCS (n = 9223, 79%) or mastectomy (n = 2408, 21%). After adjustment for socio-demographic and clinical factors, compared to women living in very high accessibility areas, women in high (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.49, 0.69)), low (OR 0.47 (0.41, 0.54)) and very low (OR 0.44 (0.34, 0.56)) accessibility areas had lower odds of having BCS, while  the odds for women from middle (OR 0.81 (0.69, 0.94)) and most disadvantaged (OR 0.87 (0.71, 0.98)) areas was significantly lower than women living in affluent areas. The association between accessibility and the type of surgery reduced over time (interaction p = 0.028) but not for area disadvantage (interaction p = 0.209). In making informed decisions about surgical treatment, it is crucial that any geographical-related barriers to implementing their preferred treatment are minimised.

Environmental and social benefits of the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: data from UK TARGIT-A trial centres and two UK NHS hospitals offering TARGIT IORT

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the journeys and CO2 emissions if women with breast cancer are treated with risk-adapted single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) rather than several weeks' course of external beam whole breast radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment.

SETTING

(1) TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial (ISRCTN34086741) which compared TARGIT with traditional EBRT and found similar breast cancer control, particularly when TARGIT was given simultaneously with lumpectomy, (2) 2 additional UK centres offering TARGIT.

PARTICIPANTS

485 UK patients (249 TARGIT, 236 EBRT) in the prepathology stratum of TARGIT-A trial (where randomisation occurred before lumpectomy and TARGIT was delivered simultaneously with lumpectomy) for whom geographical data were available and 22 patients treated with TARGIT after completion of the TARGIT-A trial in 2 additional UK breast centres.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The shortest total journey distance, time and CO2 emissions from home to hospital to receive all the fractions of radiotherapy.

METHODS

Distances, time and CO2 emissions were calculated using Google Maps and assuming a fuel efficiency of 40 mpg. The groups were compared using the Student t test with unequal variance and the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test.

RESULTS

TARGIT patients travelled significantly fewer miles: TARGIT 21 681, mean 87.1 (SE 19.1) versus EBRT 92 591, mean 392.3 (SE 30.2); had lower CO2 emissions 24.7 kg (SE 5.4) vs 111 kg (SE 8.6) and spent less time travelling: 3 h (SE 0.53) vs 14 h (SE 0.76), all p<0.0001. Patients treated with TARGIT in 2 hospitals in semirural locations were spared much longer journeys (753 miles, 30 h, 215 kg CO2 per patient).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TARGIT intraoperative radiotherapy for eligible patients with breast cancer significantly reduces their journeys for treatment and has environmental benefits. If widely available, 5 million miles (8 000 000 km) of travel, 170 000 woman-hours and 1200 tonnes of CO2 (a forest of 100 hectares) will be saved annually in the UK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN34086741; Post-results.

Phase 1 in the development of a patient-reported measure to quantify perceived inconvenience of radiotherapy: generation of issues

AIMS

Current patient-reported measures (PROMs) do not specifically address radiotherapy (RT) related inconvenience. We conducted, as per guidelines of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the initial (issue generation) phase of development of a RT inconvenience PROM. Specifically, we aimed to develop a conceptual framework for RT inconvenience and generate a comprehensive list of issues pertaining to it.

METHODS

We reviewed existing PROMs and literature and gathered qualitative and quantitative data from consumers and health professionals, in order to generate a comprehensive list of issues pertaining to RT inconvenience. A framework for the consideration of RT inconvenience was defined and used to ensure all possible issues were explored and to list the issues into conceptual domains.

RESULTS

Qualitative data from 26 consumers and 30 health professionals, and quantitative data from 1191 consumers and 253 health professionals resulted in the identification of 38 issues grouped into five conceptual domains: (1) inconvenience of RT opportunity, (2) inconvenience of decision-making, (3) inconvenience of treatment, (4) inconvenience of side effects, and (5) inconvenience of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This list of RT inconvenience issues will, in future work, be operationalized into a set of items for pretesting and then large-scale field testing as per the EORTC guidelines.