Timing of Chemotherapy After MammoSite Radiation Therapy System Breast Brachytherapy: Analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy Registry Trial

Radiation recall reaction induced by gemcitabine/docetaxel in children: A retrospective study on risk factors and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Radiation recall reaction (RRR) is a rare inflammatory reaction developing in a previously irradiated field after a triggering agent. In pediatric patients, it is poorly understood and deficiently studied. Gemcitabine-docetaxel (G/D) in childhood cancer is mainly used as a salvage regimen for sarcomas. We aim to describe RRR triggered by G/D in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 21 patients receiving G/D along with radiotherapy at two hospitals from 2010 until 2022. RRR was considered as any toxicity occurring after G/D administration in a previously irradiated field. RRR features were described. Fisher's and Mann-Whitney tests were utilized to analyze the risk factors involved.

RESULTS

Sixteen episodes of RRR developed in 16 (76.2%) patients. RRR mainly involved deep layers of the skin (58%) and occurred predominantly after two G/D cycles. The mean time between radiotherapy and chemotherapy was 28.5 days (0-1359 days), and the mean radiation volume 391 mL (157-1810 mL) for RRR. RRR treatment was mainly systemic steroids, with partial responses in six of 11 (58%) patients. Re-exposure to G/D was associated with a high rate of recurrence in nine of 15 (56.2%), prompting drug discontinuation. The major risk factors for RRR after G/D include, without statistical significance, a larger volume of the irradiated field and a shorter interval between chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of RRR after G/D in the pediatric population is higher than previously reported. Drug re-exposure is usually followed by recurrence. Higher irradiated volumes and a shorter time to the start of chemotherapy could be related with an increased risk of RRR.

A case of cetuximab-induced radiation recall skin dermatitis and review of the literature

Radiation recall presents as an acute inflammatory reaction triggered by systemic therapy, usually chemotherapy, and is typically limited to an area that was previously irradiated. Radiation recall reactions are generally self-limiting and most commonly occur in the skin. Many systemic agents have been described to elicit a radiation recall reaction, but the exact pathogenesis is largely unknown. Here, we describe the first reported case of radiation recall dermatitis following cetuximab. While cetuximab is associated with other skin reactions, oncologists should not exclude radiation recall dermatitis as a potential complication of cetuximab infusion in patients with prior radiation, and special attention should be paid to the pattern of skin changes both in terms of location and chronology.

Radiation recall reactions: An oncologic enigma

Radiation recall reactions (RRR) are uncommon but are a well-known phenomenon to oncologists. Tissue damage in a prior irradiation portal is 'recalled' after the administration of a drug, historically cytotoxics, or more recently, targeted or immunotherapeutic agents. Even COVID-19 vaccines are a reported cause. RRR are enigmatic in that their cause is unknown, but they generally have the histopathological and clinical features of acute or chronic inflammation. They can occur in a variety of tissues, the commonest being skin, which accounts for two-thirds of reported cases. They are generally relatively mild and self-limiting once the trigger drug is stopped, although severe cases with tissue necrosis have occurred. Rechallenge with drug does not necessarily cause reactivation of the reaction. Symptomatic treatment with steroids and antihistamines are usually effective, but their impact on the clinical course is unclear. Various hypotheses have been proposed as to the mechanism of RRR; a non-immune fixed drug reaction-like condition, dysregulated release of reactive oxygen species, abnormalities of tissue vasculature and impaired DNA repair. All could lead to a characteristic inflammatory microenvironment, resulting in dysfunction of tissue stem cells, keratinocyte necrosis and dermal abnormalities. Alternatively or in addition, low levels of inflammatory tissue cytokines induced by previous irradiation might be further upregulated by drug exposure. Most information in this review refers to data derived from cutaneous RRR, since they are the most common form reported.

Dermatologic toxicities associated with radiation therapy in women with breast cancer

Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation therapy has become the standard of care for women with early stage breast cancer, and as a result, a large number of patients are affected by the cutaneous sequelae of radiation therapy. These dermatologic toxicities may present during treatment or years later and can significantly impact patients’ quality of life. In this review, we discuss the clinical presentation, prevention, and management of radiation-induced cutaneous toxicities in women with breast cancer, including radiation dermatitis, radiation recall, radiation-induced morphea, radiation-induced fibrosis, and cutaneous malignancies in irradiated skin.

Concomitant Radiation Recall Dermatitis and Organizing Pneumonia following Breast Radiotherapy: A Case Report

Purpose

Radiation recall dermatitis (RRD) is a rare complication that occurs after completion of radiation therapy (RT) and initiation of a precipitating agent, most commonly chemotherapeutic medications. Various theories attempt to explain the mechanism, including activation of the body's inflammatory pathways through nonimmune activation. Likewise, radiation-induced organizing pneumonia (RIOP) is an infrequent but potentially life-threatening complication of RT that, while not fully understood, is suspected to be partly an autoimmune reaction.

Patient

We present the case of a 71-year-old female with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, interstitial cystitis, and osteoarthritis who presented with clinical stage T1N0M0 ER+/PR–/HER2– invasive ductal carcinoma of the lower outer quadrant of the left breast, for which she underwent left segmental mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by completion axillary lymph node dissection. Her final pathologic stage was T1N1M0.

Result

The patient developed RRD and later RIOP following receipt of radiation and chemotherapy, which resolved with steroid administration.

Conclusions

The rarity of both RRD and RIOP occurring in a patient, as in our case, suggests a shared pathophysiology behind these two complications. As both reactions involve some degree of inflammation and respond to corticosteroids, it seems likely that the etiologies of RRD and RIOP lie within the inflammatory pathway. However, further investigation should evaluate the frequency, duration, and triggering of concomitant RRD and RIOP.

Radiation recall dermatitis in response to adjuvant capecitabine immediately following postoperative radiotherapy in a patient with breast cancer

Radiation recall is a known rare skin reaction that occurs in response to various systemic therapies following radiotherapy (RT). Implementation of a new treatment protocol, even with a drug that is commonly administered, should be approached with caution. This report details the clinical experience of a patient with breast cancer who experienced radiation recall dermatitis or radiosensitization in response to adjuvant capecitabine immediately following postoperative RT.

A prospective comparison of subjective and objective assessments of cosmetic outcomes following breast brachytherapy

Purpose

We evaluated agreement between subjective and objective methods of cosmesis scoring in an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) cohort.

Material and methods

Consecutive women treated with APBI using interstitial brachytherapy reported for clinical follow-up every 6 months. Single cross-sectional assessment of the breast cosmesis was done by a radiation oncologist (subjective method) using Harvard scale and by photographic assessment using BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment. Cosmetic results, version 3.1) software (objective method) at 18-36 months post-APBI. The agreement between subjective and objective methods for the overall score as well as individual subjective/objective subdomains was computed using kappa statistics. ANOVA was used to test the correlation between objective indices and subjective subdomains.

Results

The agreement between the subjective (physician) and objective assessment was good with a kappa of 0.673. Overall, 77 (98.7%) patients were satisfied with the overall outcomes of breast conservation therapy. The kappa agreement between physician and patient scoring was 0.457 (95% CI: 0.240-0.674). Among the subjective subdomains, location of the nipple areola complex (NAC) had good agreement with both the overall subjective and objective score, with the kappa of 0.778 and 0.547, respectively. In the objective indices, BCE (breast compliance evaluation), LBC (lower breast contour), and UNR (unilateral nipple retraction) correlated significantly with the subjective subdomains: location of the NAC, breast size, and shape (p < 0.05 for all indices).

Conclusions

Good agreement exists for overall cosmetic outcomes measured by subjective and objective methods. Location of the NAC, breast size and shape are the most important parameters determining cosmetic outcomes irrespective of the method of assessment.

Long-Term Side Effects and Cosmetic Outcome in a Pool of Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Intraoperative Radiotherapy with Electrons as Sole Treatment

Aims

To evaluate late toxicity and cosmetic outcome after intraoperative radiotherapy using electrons (ELIOT) as sole treatment modality in early breast cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 119 patients selected randomly among 1200 cases was analyzed. Late toxicities were documented using the LENT-SOMA scoring system, cosmesis was evaluated with the Harvard scale, and a numeric rating scale was used to assess symptoms.

Results

After a median follow-up of 71 months, grade II fibrosis was observed in 38 patients (31.9%) and grade III fibrosis in 7 patients (5.9%). Postoperative complications (12.6%) did not correlate with late toxicity. Physicians and patients scored cosmesis as excellent or good in 84% and 77.3% of the cases, respectively. Patient satisfaction was higher than 90%.

Conclusions

In the study, ELIOT gives low and acceptable long-term toxicity. A longer follow-up and a larger number of patients are needed to confirm these promising results.

Intraoperative radiotherapy: Patient selection, management, and follow-up

Intraoperative partial breast radiotherapy is an alternative or an adjunct to fractionated whole breast irradiation for the administration of adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer following breast conserving surgery. Establishing intraoperative radiotherapy as a therapeutic modality requires a multidisciplinary approach to patient selection, workup, surgery, radiation protocols, chemotherapy, and patient follow up. In this article, we review the published evidence for best clinical practice, as a guide to the introduction of intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy induced radiation recall phenomenon in a postoperative breast cancer patient: a case report

The radiation recall phenomenon (RRP) is an acute inflammatory reaction at a site previously treated with radiation, and is triggered by anti-cancer therapies such as chemotherapy or antibiotics. A 48-year-old Japanese woman with primary breast cancer underwent partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Subsequent to breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, including docetaxel in combination with cyclophosphamide (TC), was administrated after 16 days of radiotherapy involving the right breast. The patient experienced the RRP with erythema and burning pain at the site of the irradiation fields at 6 days after the administration of TC. The skin symptoms resolved after treatment with topical corticosteroid therapy over a few days. After the second course of TC, the patient had only mild symptoms relative to the first course. She successfully completed four cycles of TC without dose reduction and treatment delay. We report this case involving the RRP induced by TC together with a review of the literature.

Radiation recall dermatitis and radiation pneumonitis during treatment with vemurafenib

The basis of radiation recall reactions (RRR) is a subclinical radiation damage that is uncovered later by treatment with anticancer agents. Several drugs have been associated with RRR, in particular taxanes and anthracyclines. Recently, a few cases were reported concerning radiation recall dermatitis caused by vemurafenib. Up to now, there have been no reports of RRR in the lung induced by vemurafenib. We describe the occurrence of RRR in three melanoma patients who had undergone radiotherapy for metastases followed by systemic treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. Two patients developed radiation recall pneumonitis (RRP) and one patient developed radiation recall dermatitis (RRD) 5-7 weeks after the radiation treatment was finished and 2-4 weeks after vemurafenib was started. The early application of systemic (RRP) and topical corticosteroids (RRD) enabled us to continue the treatment with vemurafenib without dose reduction. Caution is needed when vemurafenib is planned for patients who have undergone previous radiotherapy, and RRR of the skin and the lung have to be taken into account.

Excellent local control with IOERT and postoperative EBRT in high grade extremity sarcoma: results from a subgroup analysis of a prospective trial

Background

To report the results of a subgroup analysis of a prospective phase II trial focussing on radiation therapy and outcome in patients with extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS).

Methods

Between 2005 and 2010, 50 patients (pts) with high risk STS (size ≥ 5 cm, deep/extracompartimental location, grade II-III (FNCLCC)) were enrolled. The protocol comprised 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with EIA (etoposide, ifosfamide and doxorubicin), definitive surgery with IOERT, postoperative EBRT and 4 adjuvant cycles of EIA. 34 pts, who suffered from extremity tumors and received radiation therapy after limb-sparing surgery, formed the basis of this subgroup analysis.

Results

Median follow-up from inclusion was 48 months in survivors. Margin status was R0 in 30 pts (88%) and R1 in 4 pts (12%). IOERT was performed as planned in 31 pts (91%) with a median dose of 15 Gy, a median electron energy of 6 MeV and a median cone size of 9 cm. All patients received postoperative EBRT with a median dose of 46 Gy after IOERT or 60 Gy without IOERT. Median time from surgery to EBRT and median EBRT duration was 36 days, respectively. One patient developed a local recurrence while 11 patients showed nodal or distant failures. The estimated 5-year rates of local control, distant control and overall survival were 97%, 66% and 79%, respectively. Postoperative wound complications were found in 7 pts (20%), resulting in delayed EBRT (>60 day interval) in 3 pts. Acute radiation toxicity mainly consisted of radiation dermatitis (grade II: 24%, no grade III reactions). 4 pts developed grade I/II radiation recall dermatitis during adjuvant chemotherapy, which resolved during the following cycles. Severe late toxicity was observed in 6 pts (18%). Long-term limb preservation was achieved in 32 pts (94%) with good functional outcome in 81%.

Conclusion

Multimodal therapy including IOERT and postoperative EBRT resulted in excellent local control and good overall survival in patients with high risk STS of the extremities with acceptable acute and late radiation side effects. Limb preservation with good functional outcome was achieved in the majority of patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01382030, EudraCT 2004-002501-72, 17.06.2011

The RSSearch™ Registry: patterns of care and outcomes research on patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The RSSearch™ Registry is a multi-institutional, observational, ongoing registry established to standardize data collection from patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and/or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). This report describes the design, patient demographics, lesion characteristics, and SRS/SBRT treatment patterns in RSSearch™. Illustrative patient-related outcomes are also presented for two common treatment sites--brain metastases and liver metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine US centers participated in RSSearch™. Patients screened for SRS/SBRT were eligible to be enrolled. Descriptive analyses were performed to assess patient characteristics, physician treatment practices, and clinical outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine overall survival (OS), local progression-free (LPFS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).

RESULTS

From January, 2008-January, 2013, 11,457 patients were enrolled. The median age was 67 years (range 7-100 years); 51% male and 49% female. Forty-six percent had no prior treatment, 22% had received chemotherapy, 19% radiation therapy and 17% surgery. There were 11,820 lesions from 65 treatment locations; 54% extracranial and 46% intracranial. The most common treatment locations were brain/cranial nerve/spinal cord, lung, prostate and liver. Metastatic lesions accounted for the majority of cases (41.6%), followed by primary malignant (32.9%), benign (10.9%), recurrent (9.4%), and functional diseases (4.3%). SRS/SBRT was used with a curative intent in 39.8% and palliative care in 44.8% of cases. The median dose for all lesions was 30 Gy (range < 1-96.7 Gy) delivered in a median number of 3 fractions. The median dose for lesions in the brain/cranial nerve/spinal cord, lung, liver, pancreas and prostate was 24, 54, 45, 29 and 36.25 Gy, respectively. In a subset analysis of 799 patients with 952 brain metastases, median OS was 8 months. For patients with a Karnofsky performance score (KPS) > 70, OS was 11 months vs. 4 months for KPS ≤ 70. Six-month and 12-month local control was 79% and 61%, respectively for patients with KPS ≤ 70, and 85% and 74%, respectively for patients with KPS > 70. In a second subset analysis including 174 patients with 204 liver metastases, median OS was 22 months. At 1-year, LPFS and DDFS rates were 74% and 53%, respectively.

LPFS CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that collective patterns of care and outcomes research for SRS/SBRT can be performed and reported from data entered by users in a common database. The RSSearch™ dataset represents SRS/SBRT practices in a real world setting, providing a useful resource for expanding knowledge of SRS/SBRT treatment patterns and outcomes and generating robust hypotheses for randomized clinical studies.

A child with gemcitabine-induced severe radiation recall myositis resulting in a compartment syndrome

Chemotherapeutic induction of radiation recall (RR) is a rare event in which a chemotherapeutic agent given days to years after radiation therapy causes an inflammation reaction of the tissues within the irradiated area-"recalling" increased radiation effects to that area. In this unique case, a 14-year-old girl with a synovial sarcoma of the forearm was treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Gemcitabine was administered in an adjuvant setting inducing a RR reaction. The severity of the inflammation resulted in a forearm myositis secondarily causing a compartment syndrome that was treated with several prolonged courses of corticosteroids. The symptoms of RR and compartment syndrome have resolved 1 year postonset, although magnetic resonance imaging continues to show myositis and soft-tissue edema. This case highlights the need to maintain a heightened awareness to recognizing the signs and symptoms of RR and the potential severity of RR in pediatric cancer patients in conjunction with chemotherapeutic agents used more frequently in adults.

Locoregional interaction of ixabepilone (ixempra) after breast cancer radiation

BACKGROUND

Radiation recall is an acute inflammatory reaction within a previously irradiated field triggered by chemotherapy administration. We observed a series of patients with unexpectedly severe reactions that included radiation recall and delayed healing when patients received the microtubule stabilizer ixabepilone (Ixempra; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) after radiation. We therefore decided to evaluate our experience in patients receiving ixabepilone following radiotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients treated with curative intent in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2008-2011 who received any ixabepilone after completion of external-beam radiation therapy. These patients received adjuvant ixabepilone on one of two protocols, either for locally advanced breast cancer or for metastatic breast cancer. In total, 19 patients were identified and their charts were subsequently reviewed for evidence of ixabepilone-related toxicity.

RESULTS

Of the 19 patients identified who received ixabepilone following radiation therapy, three (15.8%) had unexpectedly serious reactions in the months following radiation therapy. Complications included delayed wound closure and drain placement into the seroma, intense erythema, and delayed wound closure and grade 4 chest wall necrosis requiring latissimus flap and skin grafting. The average number of days between the end of radiation therapy and documentation of reaction was 99.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixabepilone chemotherapy may induce radiation recall and delayed wound healing when used shortly after the completion of external-beam radiotherapy. Significant clinical interactions have not been previously reported and merit further evaluation.

Six-year analysis of treatment-related toxicities in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation on the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy registry trial

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) enrolled women in a registry trial to prospectively study patients treated with the MammoSite RTS device. This report presents 6-year data on treatment-related toxicities from the trial.

METHODS

A total of 1449 primary early-stage breast cancers were treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using the MammoSite device (34 Gy in 10 fractions) in 1440 women. Of these, 1255 case (87%) had invasive breast cancer (IBC) (median size = 10 mm) and 194 cases (13%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (median size = 8 mm). Median follow-up was 59 months. Fisher exact test was performed to correlate categorical covariates with toxicity.

RESULTS

Breast seromas were reported in 28% of cases (35.5% with open cavity and 21.7% with closed cavity placement). Also, 13% of all treated breasts developed symptomatic seromas, and 77% of these seromas developed during the 1st year after treatment. There were 172 cases (11.9%) that required drainage to correct. Use of chemotherapy and balloon fill >50 cc were associated with the development of symptomatic seromas. Also, 2.3% of patients developed fat necrosis (FN). The incidence of FN during years 1 and 2 were 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. Seroma formation, use of hormonal therapy, breast infection, and A/B cup size were associated with fat necrosis. There were 138 infections (9.5%) recorded; 98% occurred during the 1st year after treatment. Chemotherapy and seroma formation were associated with the development of infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment-related toxicities 6 years after treatment with APBI using the MammoSite device are similar to those reported with other forms of APBI with similar follow-up.

Factors associated with optimal long-term cosmetic results in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation using balloon-based brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate factors associated with optimal cosmetic results at 72 months for early-stage breast cancer patients treated with Mammosite balloon-based accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 1,440 patients (1,449 cases) with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving therapy were treated with balloon-based brachytherapy to deliver APBI (34 Gy in 3.4-Gy fractions). Cosmetic outcome was evaluated at each follow-up visit and dichotomized as excellent/good (E/G) or fair/poor (F/P). Follow-up was evaluated at 36 and 72 months to establish long-term cosmesis, stability of cosmesis, and factors associated with optimal results.

RESULTS

The percentage of evaluable patients with excellent/good (E/G) cosmetic results at 36 months and more than 72 months were 93.3% (n = 708/759) and 90.4% (n = 235/260). Factors associated with optimal cosmetic results at 72 months included: larger skin spacing (p = 0.04) and T1 tumors (p = 0.02). Using multiple regression analysis, the only factors predictive of worse cosmetic outcome at 72 months were smaller skin spacing (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.99) and tumors greater than 2 cm (OR, 4.96, CI, 1.53-16.07). In all, 227 patients had both a 36-month and a 72-month cosmetic evaluation. The number of patients with E/G cosmetic results decreased only slightly from 93.4% at 3 years to 90.8% (p = 0.13) at 6 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

APBI delivered with balloon-based brachytherapy produced E/G cosmetic results in 90.4% of cases at 6 years. Larger tumors (T2) and smaller skin spacing were found to be the two most important independent predictors of cosmesis.

Partial breast irradiation in a patient with bilateral breast cancers and CREST syndrome

PURPOSE

To describe the first documented use of partial breast irradiation (PBI) in a patient with calcinosis, Raynaud's phenomenon, esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasias (CREST) syndrome.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A 50-year-old woman with well-controlled CREST syndrome for 6 years was diagnosed with bilateral early-staged breast cancers. She underwent bilateral lumpectomies, sentinel lymph node biopsies, and PBI delivered via bilateral MammoSite catheters (Cytyc Corp., Marlborough, MA) followed by chemotherapy. She was monitored perioperatively, at 6 months and at 1 year for worsening of her CREST-related symptoms and complications associated with surgery and radiation therapy. Both surgeon and patient's opinion of her cosmetic outcome were also recorded at 1-year followup.

RESULTS

The patient experienced mild acute cellulitic changes in the perioperative period, which resolved with antibiotics. At 6 months, she exhibited a Grade 1 late toxicity, which has remained stable at 1-year followup. The patient and surgeon are very pleased with her cosmetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Accelerated PBI was delivered safely to a patient with collagen vascular disease. By decreasing the surface area receiving radiation with accelerated PBI, we believe that the toxicity associated with the treatment was minimized. Future studies will be necessary to clarify the use of PBI in patients with collagen vascular disease.

Radiation recall with anticancer agents

There is still much that needs to be understood about radiation recall, and it is not currently possible to predict which patients will be affected and to which drugs they will react. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined characteristics of drugs that cause radiation recall, and thus, it is a possibility that must be kept in mind with use of any drug after radiotherapy, including those from new drug classes. Although it is not yet possible to design treatment regimens to eliminate the risk of radiation recall, it seems likely that risks can be minimized by prolonging the interval between completion of radiotherapy and initiation of full-dose chemotherapy.

Radiation recall is an acute inflammatory reaction confined to previously irradiated areas that can be triggered when chemotherapy agents are administered after radiotherapy. It remains a poorly understood phenomenon, but increased awareness may aid early diagnosis and appropriate management. A diverse range of drugs used in the treatment of cancer has been associated with radiation recall. As most data come from case reports, it is not possible to determine the true incidence, but to date the antineoplastic drugs for which radiation recall reactions have been most commonly reported include the anthracycline doxorubicin, the taxanes docetaxel and paclitaxel, and the antimetabolites gemcitabine and capecitabine. Radiation recall is drug-specific for any individual patient; it is not possible to predict which patients will react to which drugs, and rechallenge does not uniformly induce a reaction. There are no identifiable characteristics of drugs that cause radiation recall, and thus, it is a possibility that must be kept in mind with use of any drug after radiotherapy, including those from new drug classes. Although it is not yet possible to design treatment regimens to eliminate the risk of radiation recall, it seems likely that risks can be minimized by prolonging the interval between completion of radiotherapy and initiation of chemotherapy.

Five-year analysis of treatment efficacy and cosmesis by the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy Registry Trial in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation

PURPOSE

To present 5-year data on treatment efficacy, cosmetic results, and toxicities for patients enrolled on the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite breast brachytherapy registry trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 1440 patients (1449 cases) with early-stage breast cancer receiving breast-conserving therapy were treated with the MammoSite device to deliver accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) (34 Gy in 3.4-Gy fractions). Of 1449 cases, 1255 (87%) had invasive breast cancer (IBC) (median size, 10 mm) and 194 (13%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (median size, 8 mm). Median follow-up was 54 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven cases (2.6%) developed an ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), for a 5-year actuarial rate of 3.80% (3.86% for IBC and 3.39% for DCIS). Negative estrogen receptor status (p=0.0011) was the only clinical, pathologic, or treatment-related variable associated with IBTR for patients with IBC and young age (<50 years; p=0.0096) and positive margin status (p=0.0126) in those with DCIS. The percentage of breasts with good/excellent cosmetic results at 60 months (n=371) was 90.6%. Symptomatic breast seromas were reported in 13.0% of cases, and 2.3% developed fat necrosis. A subset analysis of the first 400 consecutive cases enrolled was performed (352 with IBC, 48 DCIS). With a median follow-up of 60.5 months, the 5-year actuarial rate of IBTR was 3.04%.

CONCLUSION

Treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity 5 years after treatment with APBI using the MammoSite device are good and similar to those reported with other forms of APBI with similar follow-up.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation consensus statement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)

PURPOSE

To present guidance for patients and physicians regarding the use of accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI), based on current published evidence complemented by expert opinion.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic search of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database yielded 645 candidate original research articles potentially applicable to APBI. Of these, 4 randomized trials and 38 prospective single-arm studies were identified. A Task Force composed of all authors synthesized the published evidence and, through a series of meetings, reached consensus regarding the recommendations contained herein.

RESULTS

The Task Force proposed three patient groups: (1) a "suitable" group, for whom APBI outside of a clinical trial is acceptable, (2) a "cautionary" group, for whom caution and concern should be applied when considering APBI outside of a clinical trial, and (3) an "unsuitable" group, for whom APBI outside of a clinical trial is not generally considered warranted. Patients who choose treatment with APBI should be informed that whole-breast irradiation (WBI) is an established treatment with a much longer track record that has documented long-term effectiveness and safety.

CONCLUSION

Accelerated partial-breast irradiation is a new technology that may ultimately demonstrate long-term effectiveness and safety comparable to that of WBI for selected patients with early breast cancer. This consensus statement is intended to provide guidance regarding the use of APBI outside of a clinical trial and to serve as a framework to promote additional clinical investigations into the optimal role of APBI in the treatment of breast cancer.

Radiation recall reaction with docetaxel administration after accelerated partial breast irradiation with electronic brachytherapy

PURPOSE

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) offers several advantages over whole breast irradiation. Electronic brachytherapy may further reduce barriers to breast conserving therapy by making APBI more available. However, its toxicity profile is not well characterized.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A 60-year-old woman was treated with APBI using Axxent (Xoft, Sunnyvale, CA) electronic brachytherapy. One month after APBI, a cycle of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide was given. Within 3 weeks, the patient developed an ulcerative radiation recall reaction in the skin overlying the lumpectomy cavity. To investigate this toxicity, the skin dose from electronic brachytherapy was compared with the dose that would have been delivered by an iridium-192 ((192)Ir) source. Additionally, a dose equivalent was estimated by adjusting for the increased relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) of low energy photons generated by the electronic source.

RESULTS

Using electronic brachytherapy, the skin dose was 537cGy per fraction compared with 470cGy for an (192)Ir source. Given an RBE for a 40kV source of 1.28 compared with (192)Ir, the equivalent dose at the skin for an electronic source was 687cGy-equivalents, a 46% increase.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a case of an ulcerative radiation recall reaction in a patient receiving APBI with electronic brachytherapy followed by chemotherapy. Our analysis shows that the use of electronic brachytherapy resulted in the deposition of significantly higher equivalent dose at the skin compared with (192)Ir. These findings suggest that standard guidelines (e.g., surface-to-skin distance) that apply to (192)Ir-based balloon brachytherapy may not be applicable to electronic brachytherapy.