Mammography findings following electron intraoperative radiotherapy or external radiotherapy for breast cancer treatment

Quantification of breast lymphoedema following conservative breast cancer treatment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Breast lymphoedema is a possible side effect of breast conserving surgery, but it is poorly understood. This is due, in part, to difficulty assessing the breast. This systematic review described outcome measures that quantify breast lymphoedema signs and symptoms and evaluated the measurement properties for these outcome measures.

METHOD

Seven databases were searched using terms in four categories: breast cancer, lymphoedema and oedema, clinician reported (ClinROM) and patient reported outcome measures (PROM) and psychometric and measurement properties. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies and completed quality assessments. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology was used for studies including measurement property evidence.

RESULTS

Fifty-six papers were included with thirteen questionnaires, eight patient-reported rating scales, seven physical measures, seven clinician-rating scales and four imaging techniques used to quantify breast lymphoedema. Based on COSMIN methodology, one ClinROM had sufficient reliability, ultrasound measuring dermal thickness. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) measuring local tissue water had promising reliability. Four questionnaires had sufficient content validity (BLYSS, BLSQ, BrEQ and LYMQOL-Breast).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound is recommended to reliably assess breast lymphoedema signs. No PROM can be recommended with confidence, but BLYSS, BLSQ, BrEQ and LYMQOL-Breast are promising. Further research is recommended to improve evidence of measurement properties for outcome measures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There are many approaches to assess breast lymphoedema, but currently, only ultrasound can be recommended for use, with others, such as TDC and questionnaires, showing promise. Further research is required for all approaches to improve evidence of measurement properties.

Intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: the lasting effects of a fleeting treatment

In well-selected patients who choose to pursue breast conservation therapy (BCT) for early-stage breast cancer, partial breast irradiation (PBI) delivered externally or intraoperatively, may be a viable alternative to conventional whole breast irradiation. Two large, contemporary randomized trials have demonstrated breast intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) to be noninferior to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) when assessing for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in select patients. Additionally, IORT and other PBI techniques are likely to be more widely adopted in the future because they improve patient convenience by offering an accelerated course of treatment. Coupled with these novel techniques for breast radiotherapy (RT) are distinct toxicity profiles and unique cosmetic alterations that differ from conventional breast EBRT and have the potential to impact disease surveillance and patient satisfaction. This paper will review the level-one evidence for treatment efficacy as well as important secondary endpoints like RT toxicity, breast cosmesis, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and surveillance mammography following BCT with IORT.

Comparison of mammographic findings after intraoperative radiotherapy or external beam whole breast radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The TARGIT (TARGeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy) trial was designed to compare local recurrence and complication rates in breast cancer patients, prospectively randomised to either EBRT (external beam whole breast radiotherapy) or a single dose of IORT (intraoperative radiotherapy). The aim of our study was to compare follow-up mammographic findings, ultrasound and biopsy rates in each group.

METHODS

Follow-up imaging and breast biopsies of women from one centre participating in the TARGIT-A trial were independently reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the radiotherapy treatment received.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 141 patients (EBRT n = 80/IORT n = 61). There was no significant difference in the patient or disease characteristics of the two groups. The number of follow-up mammograms and length of follow-up was similar (EBRT/IORT n = 2.0/2.4; 4.3yr/5.1yr; p = 0.386 χ(2) test). There were no significant differences in mammographic scar or calcification appearances of the post-operative site. Generalised increase in breast density and skin thickening were more common in the EBRT compared to the IORT group (p = 0.002; p = 0.030, χ(2) test respectively). A trend towards additional ultrasound at follow-up was observed in the IORT group (15 of 61 [24.6%] versus 11 of 80 [13.8%]), however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.100 χ(2) test). No disease recurrence was demonstrated on any of the breast biopsies taken. Only one biopsy was reported as fat necrosis in the IORT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Mammographic changes were more common following EBRT, although more additional follow-up ultrasounds were performed in the IORT group. IORT is not detrimental to subsequent radiological follow up.

Are mammographic changes in the tumor bed more pronounced after intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer? Subgroup analysis from a randomized trial (TARGIT-A)

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with low-energy x-rays is increasingly used in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Previous non-randomized studies have observed mammographic changes in the tumor bed to be more pronounced after IORT. The purpose of this study was to reassess the postoperative changes in a randomized single-center subgroup of patients from a multicenter trial (TARGIT-A). In this subgroup (n = 48) 27 patients received BCT with IORT, 21 patients had BCT with standard whole-breast radiotherapy serving as controls. Overall 258 postoperative mammograms (median follow-up 4.3 years, range 3-8) were retrospectively evaluated by two radiologists in consensus focusing on changes in the tumor bed. Fat necroses showed to be significantly more frequent (56% versus 24%) and larger (8.7 versus 1.6 sq cm, median) after IORT than those in controls. Scar calcifications were also significantly more frequent after IORT (63% versus 19%). The high incidence of large fat necroses in our study confirms previous study findings. However, the overall higher incidence of calcifications in the tumor bed after IORT represents a new finding, requiring further attention.