An evidence-based estimation of local control and survival benefit of radiotherapy for breast cancer

Development of an age- and comorbidity- adjusted optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate for lung, rectal, prostate and cervical cancers

INTRODUCTION

Optimal radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) modelling estimates the proportion of people with cancer who would benefit from radiotherapy. Assessment of comorbidities is an important component of the assessment of suitability for radiotherapy in addition to chronological age and life expectancy. Comorbidities have not been considered in previous optimal RTU models. We aimed to develop an age- and comorbidity- adjusted optimal RTU model for patients with lung, rectal, prostate, and cervical cancer, and compare them to actual RTU rates, with a particular focus on those aged 80+ years, METHODS: New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry data (2010-2014) linked to radiotherapy data (2010-2015) and hospitalisation data (2008-2015) were used to determine the number of patients diagnosed with lung, rectal, prostate and cervical cancer. The Cancer Specific C3 'all sites' comorbidity index was calculated from hospital diagnosis data for each patient to determine suitability for radiotherapy. The index was then incorporated into a tumour site-specific decision tree model. The actual RTU was also calculated using the linked datasets.

RESULTS

14,696 patients were diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 1839 with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), 5551 with rectal cancer, 30,935 with prostate cancer and 1216 with cervical cancer in New South Wales from 2010-2014. The proportion of patients aged 80+ years at cancer diagnosis was 25% (3603 patients), 15% (279 patients), 17% (943 patients), 12% (3745 patients), and 7% (88 patients) respectively. The age- and comorbidity- adjusted optimal RTU rates for patients aged 80+ years using the C3 index were 49% (NSCLC), 49% (SCLC), 43% (rectal), 51% (prostate) and 40% (cervical). The corresponding actual RTU rates for patients aged 80+ years were 25%, 32%, 27%, 16%, and 56%.

CONCLUSION

Even after adjusting for age and comorbidities, the actual radiotherapy utilisation rates were lower than optimal radiotherapy utilisation rates in patients aged 80+ years except for patients with cervical cancer. This warrants further assessment and research into reasons and solutions.

Radiotherapy utilisation rates for patients with cancer as a function of age: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing incidence of cancer in older people, but limited data on radiotherapy uptake, and in particular, radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) rates. The RTU rate for older adults with cancer may be lower than recommended due to lower tolerance for radiotherapy as well as additional comorbidities, reduced life expectancy and travel for treatment. Radiotherapy use must be aligned with best available, age-specific evidence to ensure older adults with cancer receive optimal benefit without harms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to synthesise the published data on the actual RTU rate for patients with cancer as a function of age. MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify relevant population-based and hospital-based cohort studies on radiotherapy utilisation for all age groups, published in English, from 1 January 1990 to 1 July 2020. We focused on the following common cancers in older adults for which radiotherapy is recommended: breast, prostate, lung, rectal cancer, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), and cervical cancer. Age-specific radiotherapy utilisation data were extracted and analysed as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

From 2606 studies screened, 75 cohort and population-based studies were identified with age-specific radiotherapy utilisation data. The total number of patients in the 75 studies was 4,792,138. The RTU rate decreased with increasing age for all tumour sites analysed, except for patients receiving curative radiotherapy as definitive treatment for prostate or cervical cancer. This reduction with increasing age was demonstrated in both palliative and curative settings.

DISCUSSION

There is a global reduction in radiotherapy utilisation with increasing age for most tumour sites. The reduction in delivery of radiotherapy warrants further examination and evidence-based guidelines specific to this population.

Development of an age- and comorbidity adjusted- optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate for women with breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Optimal radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) modelling estimates the proportion of people with cancer who would benefit from radiotherapy. Older adults with cancer may have comorbidities that can impact physiological reserve and affect radiotherapy recommendations. These have not been considered in previous models. We aimed to develop an age- and comorbidity-adjusted optimal RTU model for breast cancer.

METHODS

New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry data (2010-2014) linked to radiotherapy data (2010-2015) and hospitalisation data (2008-2015) was used to determine the number of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in four pre-specified age groups. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Cancer-Specific C3 'all sites' index and the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) were derived for each woman from diagnostic codes in hospital records. Women were deemed unfit, and thus unsuitable candidates for radiotherapy, if the comorbidity indices were as follows: CCI ≥2; C3 score ≥ 3; and HFRS ≥5. The proportions of women suitable for radiotherapy in each age group were then incorporated into a breast cancer decision tree model. The actual RTU was also calculated using the linked datasets.

RESULTS

23,601 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in NSW from 2010 to 2014 and 2526 were aged 80+ years. The overall comorbidity adjusted- RTU for women of all ages was 85·9% (CCI), 83·7% (C3) and 81·9% (HFRS). The optimal comorbidity adjusted- RTU for women aged 80+ was 76·1% (CCI), 70·1% (C3) and 61·8% (HFRS). The actual RTU for women aged 80+ years was 24.7%.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of older Australian women with breast cancer are fit for radiotherapy. The overall optimal RTU is only slightly reduced when adjusted for age and comorbidities and was similar using each of the three indices examined. Our data suggest radiotherapy is markedly underutilised for older women with breast cancer.

Breast Radiotherapy after Oncoplastic Surgery-A Multidisciplinary Approach

Oncoplastic breast surgery encompasses a range of techniques used to provide equitable oncological outcomes compared with standard breast surgery while, simultaneously, prioritizing aesthetic outcomes. While the outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery are promising, it can add an extra complexity to the treatment paradigm of breast cancer and impact on decision-making surrounding adjuvant therapies, like chemotherapy and radiotherapy. As such, early discussions at the multidisciplinary team meeting with surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists present, should be encouraged to facilitate best patient care.

Optimise not compromise: The importance of a multidisciplinary breast cancer patient pathway in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery

Modern breast cancer care is a complex multidisciplinary undertaking in which the integrated function of multiple constituent parts is critical, and where changes to one therapeutic component may profoundly influence the delivery and outcomes of another. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery has evolved in the era of longer survival rates for women with breast cancer and aims to enhance oncological and cosmetic outcomes. However, concurrently there has been an expansion in the indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (Abdulkarim et al., 2011; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), 2014; Poortmans et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2011), the recognition of several biologically distinct breast cancer subtypes (Perou et al., 2000; Sørlie et al., 2001, 2003; Cheang et al., 2008, 2009; Sotiriou et al., 2003; Millar et al., 2011; Blows et al., 2010; Schnitt, 2010; Haque et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2015) and the development of recommendations for prophylactic surgery for high-risk women, including BRCA-mutation carriers (James et al., 2006; Domchek et al., 2010). Primary systemic therapy is increasingly utilised yet has varying efficacy depending on tumour biology (Cortazar et al., 2014). In this paper we review the evidence which informs the multidisciplinary team opinion in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. We aim to describe an optimal multidisciplinary approach which balances competing risks of multimodal therapies to optimise oncological and cosmetic outcomes.

Weekly Concomitant Boost in Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results on Feasibility

Aims and background

Recent advances in the management of patients with breast cancer are focused toward the reduction of overall treatment time of radiotherapy by delivering a dose biologically equivalent to a standard schedule. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary toxicity of a moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation schedule with the addition of a concomitant boost delivered to the tumor bed once-a-week in patients with early breast cancer submitted to conservative surgery.

Materials

We selected patients with pT1c and pT2 N0/N+ M0 carcinoma of the breast with negative surgical margins. The basic course consisted of 4600 cGy prescribed to the ICRU 50 reference point dose and delivered in 20 fractions, 4 times a week for 5 weeks. Once a week, immediately after whole breast irradiation, a concomitant photon boost of 120 cGy was delivered to the lumpectomy area. Overall, according to the linear-quadratic model, the schedule provides a biologically equivalent dose of 87 Gy for breast tumor (assuming α/β = 4 Gy), of 66 Gy for acute responding normal tissues (assuming α/β = 10 Gy), and 99 Gy for late responding normal tissues (assuming α/β = 3 Gy). Biologically, the schedule compares favorably with the 6-week conventional regimen consisting of 50 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction, followed by a 10 Gy boost (BEDtumor,90 Gy; BEDacute effects, 72 Gy, and BEDlate effects, 100 Gy).

Results

From November 2004 to April 2007, we tested this radiotherapy schedule in 176 patients. All enrolled patients had achieved a minimum follow-up of 6 months and were considered in detail for the evaluation of feasibility. Three clinical examinations were performed by a group of independent physicians at treatment end, after 1 month and after 6 months. According to the RTOG/EORTC Toxicity Criteria, of the 176 assessable patients at the end of radiotherapy, 58% showed grade 0–1 skin toxicity, 30% grade 2 and 12% grade 3. At one month of follow-up, grade 0 toxicity was observed in 47% of cases, grade 1 in 46% and grade 2 in 7%. At 6 months, late (skin and subcutaneous tissue) toxicity was assessed with the following scores: grade 0 in 68%, grade 1 in 26% and grade 2 in 6% of the patients. At 6 months, cosmesis was excellent, good and fair in 71%, 24% and 5% of patients, respectively.

Conclusions

The explored adjuvant schedule planned to intensify the radiotherapy course for patients with early breast cancer by adding a weekly concomitant boost appears to be feasible and provides low local toxicity and excellent to good short-term cosmetic results.

The population benefit of evidence-based radiotherapy: 5-Year local control and overall survival benefits

BACKGROUND

To describe the population benefit of radiotherapy in a high-income setting if evidence-based guidelines were routinely followed.

METHODS

Australian decision tree models were utilized. Radiotherapy alone (RT) benefit was defined as the absolute proportional benefit of radiotherapy compared with no treatment for radical indications, and of radiotherapy over surgery alone for adjuvant indications. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) benefit was the absolute incremental benefit of concurrent chemoradiotherapy over RT. Five-year local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) benefits were measured. Citation databases were systematically queried for benefit data. Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed.

FINDINGS

48% of all cancer patients have indications for radiotherapy, 34% curative and 14% palliative. RT provides 5-year LC benefit in 10.4% of all cancer patients (95% Confidence Interval 9.3, 11.8) and 5-year OS benefit in 2.4% (2.1, 2.7). CRT provides 5-year LC benefit in an additional 0.6% of all cancer patients (0.5, 0.6), and 5-year OS benefit for an additional 0.3% (0.2, 0.4). RT benefit was greatest for head and neck (LC 32%, OS 16%), and cervix (LC 33%, OS 18%). CRT LC benefit was greatest for rectum (6%) and OS for cervix (3%) and brain (3%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a robust model.

INTERPRETATION

Radiotherapy provides significant 5-year LC and OS benefits as part of evidence-based cancer care. CRT provides modest additional benefits.

Strain Imaging Detects Dose-Dependent Segmental Cardiac Dysfunction in the Acute Phase After Breast Irradiation

PURPOSE

We examined the utility of echocardiographic 2-dimensional speckle tracking strain imaging (SI) for the evaluation of segmental myocardial dysfunction before and after radiation therapy (RT) and the relationship to dose exposure.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We prospectively recruited 40 women with left-sided breast cancer, undergoing only adjuvant RT to the left chest. Comparisons of traditional echocardiographic parameters and SI parameters at baseline and 6 weeks after RT were analyzed. Regional strain and strain rate (SR) parameters were obtained from all 18 left ventricular segments. The correlation of change in strain parameters with segmental radiation dose was examined.

RESULTS

We observed a significant reduction in global and segmental systolic strain parameters at 6 weeks after RT compared with baseline, with the largest decrement in the apical segments; this corresponded with the segments receiving the highest radiation dose exposure (apical peak systolic strain of -21.21% ± 3.49% before RT vs -18.69% ± 3.34% after RT, percentage change of 11.88%, P=.002; apical peak systolic SR of -1.17 ± 0.24 s^-1 before RT vs -1.04 ± 0.19 s^-1 after RT, percentage change of 11.11%, P=.008). There was a modest correlation between the apical segment systolic strain reduction and radiation dose exposure (apical segment Δ change and apical radiation dose, r=0.345, P=.031; apical segment percentage change and apical radiation dose, r=0.346, P=.031). A significant reduction in early diastolic SR was observed in the apical segments after treatment compared with baseline (apical early diastolic SR, 1.54 ± 0.45 s^-1 before RT vs 1.35 ± 0.33 after RT s^-1; percentage change, 12.34%; P=.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-dimensional SI detected dose-related regional myocardial dysfunction in the acute phase after RT in chemotherapy-naive left-sided breast cancer patients. Although the long-term effects remain unknown, this imaging modality may have a potential role in the evaluation of irradiation-related cardiotoxicity.

A Population-based Model of Local Control and Survival Benefit of Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer

AIMS

To estimate the population-based locoregional control and overall survival benefits of radiotherapy for lung cancer if the whole population were treated according to evidence-based guidelines. These estimates were based on a published radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) model that has been used to estimate the demand and planning of radiotherapy services nationally and internationally.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The lung cancer RTU model was extended to incorporate an estimate of benefits of radiotherapy alone, and of radiotherapy in conjunction with concurrent chemotherapy (CRT). Benefits were defined as the proportional gains in locoregional control and overall survival from radiotherapy over no radiotherapy for radical indications, and from postoperative radiotherapy over surgery alone for adjuvant indications. A literature review (1990-2015) was conducted to identify benefit estimates of individual radiotherapy indications and summed to estimate the population-based gains for these outcomes. Model robustness was tested through univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

If evidence-based radiotherapy recommendations are followed for the whole lung cancer population, the model estimated that radiotherapy alone would result in a gain of 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.4-9.2%) in 5 year locoregional control, 11.4% (10.8-12.0%) in 2 year overall survival and 4.0% (3.6-4.4%) in 5 year overall survival. For the use of CRT over radiotherapy alone, estimated benefits would be: locoregional control 1.7% (0.8-2.4%), 2 year overall survival 1.7% (0.5-2.8%) and 5 year overall survival 1.2% (0.7-1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The model provided estimates of radiotherapy benefit that could be achieved if treatment guidelines are followed for all cancer patients. These can be used as a benchmark so that the effects of a shortfall in the utilisation of radiotherapy can be better understood and addressed. The model can be adapted to other populations with known epidemiological parameters to ensure the planning of equitable radiotherapy services.

Estimating the population benefit of radiotherapy: using demand models to estimate achievable cancer outcomes

The measurement of population benefits is important for priority setting, economic evaluation and quality improvement. It also informs advocacy. In this article, the use of demand models to estimate the achievable benefit of cancer therapy is reviewed. Achievable benefit refers to the treatment benefit achievable under optimal conditions. The population benefit of radiotherapy has been used as an example. Demand models provide a means of estimating the optimal proportion of patients with treatment indications when guidelines are followed. They may be used to estimate achievable benefit. The choice of end point should reflect the range of benefits associated with the treatment of interest. In some cases, further model development is needed if a pre-existing demand model is used. The benefit of treatment for each indication is estimated using a systematic review process. The highest level of evidence is used to define the benefit for each indication. In cases where multiple sources of the same level and quality of evidence exist, a meta-analysis is carried out. Population-based effectiveness data sources are considered, but three major challenges to their use are: (i) generalisability of the observed outcomes, (ii) data resolution and (iii) confounding and bias. The population benefit determined from this process describes the population proportion achieving a benefit due to the use of guideline-based treatment, compared with no use of that treatment. Sensitivity analysis provides a means for modelling the effect of model uncertainties. The predominant uncertainty is most often due to uncertainty in indication proportion. Preference-sensitive treatment decisions are a common example. The described approach to estimating the achievable benefit of cancer therapy is robust to model uncertainties, rapidly adaptable and is transparent. However, estimates rely on the quality of model data sources and may be affected by model assumptions. Models should be developed for a broader range of modalities of cancer therapy and relevant end points.

DEGRO practical guidelines for radiotherapy of breast cancer IV: radiotherapy following mastectomy for invasive breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Since the last recommendations from the Breast Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) in 2008, evidence for the effectiveness of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has grown. This growth is based on updates of the national S3 and international guidelines, as well as on new data and meta-analyses. New aspects were considered when updating the DEGRO recommendations.

METHODS

The authors performed a comprehensive survey of the literature. Data from recently published (meta-)analyses, randomized clinical trials and international cancer societies' guidelines yielding new aspects compared to 2008 were reviewed and discussed. New aspects were included in the current guidelines. Specific issues relating to particular PMRT constellations, such as the presence of risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, blood vessel invasion, positive lymph node ratio >20 %, resection margins <3 mm, G3 grading, young age/premenopausal status, extracapsular invasion, negative hormone receptor status, invasive lobular cancer, size >2 cm or a combination of ≥ 2 risk factors) and 1-3 positive lymph nodes are emphasized.

RESULTS

The evidence for improved overall survival and local control following PMRT for T4 tumors, positive resection margins, >3 positive lymph nodes and in T3 N0 patients with risk factors such as lymphovascular invasion, G3 grading, close margins, and young age has increased. Recently identified risk factors such as invasive lobular subtype and negative hormone receptor status were included. For patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes, the recommendation for PMRT has reached the 1a level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

PMRT is mandatory in patients with T4 tumors and/or positive lymph nodes and/or positive resection margins. PMRT should be strongly considered in patients with T3 N0 tumors and risk factors, particularly when two or more risk factors are present.

Short-term versus long-term hormone therapy plus radiotherapy or prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term hormonotherapy (HT) plus radiotherapy (RT) or prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Literatures were searched from Embase, PubMed, Web of science and Cochrane Library up to October, 2012. Quality of the study was evaluated according to the Cochrane's risk of bias of randomized controlled trial (RCT); the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System was used to rate the level of evidence. RevMan 5.1 was used for statistical analysis. Two comparisons were of interest: RT plus short-term HT versus RT plus long-term HT and RP plus short-term HT versus RP plus long-term HT. Pooled risk ratio or standardized mean differences were calculated; HT adverse reactions were descriptively evaluated.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (total 4,743 patients) were included, 7 RCTs compared RT plus short-term HT with RT plus long-term HT, 2 RCTs compared RP plus short-term HT with RP plus long-term HT. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in overall survival, disease-free survival and PSA level before RP; long-term was superior to short-term hormonotherapy in biochemical failure rate, clinical progression rate, prostate cancer-specific mortality, positive surgical margin rate and prostate volume before RP. Systematic review demonstrated adverse events caused by the increased length of HT were more common.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term HT plus RT showed a trend toward improved overall survival; long-term HT plus RP declined positive surgical margin rate and prostate volume before RP. So, long-term HT may benefit more, but it did not significantly improve the patients' overall survival, and the adverse reactions are inevitable.

Comparison of Acute and Late Toxicity of Two Regimens of 3- and 5-Week Concomitant Boost Prone IMRT to Standard 6-Week Breast Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Limited information is available comparing toxicity of accelerated radiotherapy (RT) to that of standard fractionation RT for early stage breast cancer. We report early and late toxicities of two prone regimens of accelerated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a concomitant boost (CB) to the tumor bed delivered over 3 or 5 weeks as compared to standard 6 week RT with a sequential electron boost.

METHODS

From 2/2003 to 12/2007, 169 consecutive patients with Stage I-II breast cancer were offered the choice to undergo prone RT with either: a 6-week standard RT regimen of 46 Gy/23 fractions (fx) to the whole breast (WB), followed by a14 Gy sequential boost (SB) to the tumor bed (6wSB), a 5-week regimen of 50 Gy to WB with an IMRT CB of 6.25 Gy in 25 fx (5wCB); or a 3-week protocol of 40.5 Gy to WB with an IMRT CB of 7.5 Gy in 15 fx (3wCB). These regimens were estimated as biologically equivalent, based on alpha/beta = 4 for tumor control. Toxicities were reported using RTOG and LENT/SOMA scoring.

RESULTS

51/169 patients chose standard 6wSB, 28 selected 5wCB, and 90 enrolled in 3wCB protocol. Maximum acute toxicity was Grade 3 dermatitis in 4% of the patients in the 6wSB compared 1% in 3wCB. In general, acute complications (breast pain, fatigue, and dermatitis) were significantly less in the 3wCB than in the other schedules (P < 0.05). With a median follow-up of 61 months, the only Grade 3 late toxicity was telangiectasia in two patients: one in 3wCB and one in 5wCB group. Notably, fibrosis was comparable among the three groups (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

These preliminary data suggest that accelerated regimens of breast RT over 3 or 5 weeks in the prone position, with an IMRT tumor bed CB, result in comparable late toxicity to standard fractionation with a sequential tumor boost delivered over 6 weeks. As predicted by radiobiological modeling the shorter regimen was associated with less acute effects.

Preliminary results on setup precision of prone-lateral patient positioning for whole breast irradiation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop a rapid and reproducible technique for prone positioning and to compare dose-volume indices in prone and supine positions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eighteen patients underwent computed tomography imaging for radiotherapy planning in prone and supine position. Experience was gained in the first eight patients, which lead to modifications of the Horizon prone breast board (Civco Medical Solutions, Orange City, Iowa, USA) and the patient setup technique. A unilateral breast holder (U-BH) was developed (Van de Velde, Schellebelle, Belgium) to retract the contralateral breast away from the treated breast. The technique was then applied to an additional 10 patients. The setup precision was evaluated using daily cone-beam CT.

RESULTS

Modifications to the breast board were made to secure a prone-lateral rather then a pure prone position. We evolved from a classical setup using laser marks on the patients' body to a direct breast setup using marks on the breast only. The setup precision of the direct positioning procedure with the modified breast board and the U-BH is comparable to supine setup data in the literature. Dose-volume indices for heart and lung show significantly better results for prone than for supine position, and dose homogeneity within the treated breast did not differ according to the treatment position.

CONCLUSIONS

The setup precision of our prone-lateral positioning technique is comparable to supine data in literature. Our data show the advantage of prone radiotherapy to spare the lung and heart. Further research is necessary to reduce the duration of prone setup.