Is breast seroma after tumour resection associated with patient-reported breast appearance change following radiotherapy? Results from the IMPORT HIGH (CRUK/06/003) trial

Comparison of adverse events in partial- or whole breast radiotherapy: investigation of cosmesis, toxicities and quality of life in a meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy and systemic therapy are part of the current evidence-based treatment protocols for early breast cancer, after breast-conserving surgery. Numerous randomized trials have investigated the therapeutic effects of partial breast irradiation (PBI) compared to whole breast irradiation (WBI), limiting the treated breast tissue. These trials were designed to achieve equal control of the disease with possible reduction in adverse events, improvements in cosmesis and quality of life (QoL). In this meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the differences between PBI and WBI in side effects and QoL.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review searching for randomized trials comparing WBI and PBI in early-stage breast cancer with publication dates after 2009. The meta-analysis was performed using the published event rates and the effect-sizes for available acute and late adverse events. Additionally, we evaluated cosmetic outcomes as well as general and breast-specific QoL using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified (n = 19,085 patients). PBI was associated with a lower prevalence in any grade 1 + acute toxicity and grade 2 + skin toxicity (OR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.09-0.18; p < 0.001); (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.41; p < 0.001). There was neither a significant difference in late adverse events between the two treatments, nor in any unfavorable cosmetic outcomes, rated by either medical professionals or patients. PBI-technique using EBRT with twice-daily fractionation schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients (n = 3215; OR = 2.08; 95% CI 1.22-3.54; p = 0.007) compared to WBI. Maximum once-daily EBRT schedules (n = 2071; OR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.79; p < 0.001) and IORT (p = 0.042) resulted in better cosmetic results grade by medical professionals. Functional- and symptom-based QoL in the C30-scale was not different between PBI and WBI. Breast-specific QoL was superior after PBI in the subdomains of "systemic therapy side effects" as well as "breast-" and "arm symptoms".

CONCLUSION

The analysis of multiple randomized trials demonstrate a superiority of PBI in acute toxicity as well breast-specific quality of life, when compared with WBI. Overall, late toxicities and cosmetic results were similar. PBI-technique with a fractionation of twice-daily schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients.

Implementation of a Breast Intraoperative Oncoplastic Form to Aid Management of Oncoplastic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS) uses concurrent reduction and/or mastopexy with lumpectomy to improve aesthetic outcomes. However, tissue rearrangement can shift the original tumor location site in relation to external breast landmarks, resulting in difficulties during re-excision for a positive margin and accurate radiation targeting. We developed the Breast Intraoperative Oncoplastic (BIO) form to help depict the location of the tumor and breast reduction specimen. This study seeks to assess physician perspectives of the implementation outcomes.

METHODS

From February 2021 to April 2021, the BIO form was used in 11 oncoplastic BCS cases at a single institution. With institutional review board approval, surgical oncologists (SOs), plastic surgeons (PSs), and radiation oncologists (ROs) were administered a 12-question validated survey on Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), using a 5-point Likert scale during initial implementation and at 6-month reassessment.

RESULTS

Twelve physicians completed the survey initially (4 SOs, 4 PSs, and 4 ROs). The mean scores for Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure were high (4.44, 4.56, and 4.56, respectively). Twelve completed the second survey (5 SOs, 3 PSs, and 4 ROs). The mean scores were marginally lower (4.06, 4.21, and 4.25). There were no significant differences when stratified by number of years in practice or specialty. Free text comments showed that 75% of physicians found the form helpful in oncoplastic BCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the BIO form. Results of this study suggest multidisciplinary benefits of implementing the BIO form in oncoplastic BCS.

Use of tumour bed boost radiotherapy in volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery: A systematic review

Tumour bed boost radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence in high-risk disease. There is recent debate over challenges to accurately localise tumour bed for RT boost delivery following volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery (VR-OBS). This review evaluates the reporting of RT boost following VR-OBS in the literature published between January 2010 and December 2021. This review was in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalysis statement.Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (n=670 patients), and RT boost was used in eight studies. Boost was administered in total to 384 patients (62.5% of irradiated patients). Only two studies reported boost planned target volumes and only one compared these against surgical specimen volumes.RT boost was not reported in most published studies on VR-OBS. Future prospective research are strongly needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of VR-OBS following RT boost, especially on breast cosmesis and patients' satisfaction. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data will be made available upon request.

Comparing Local and Systemic Control between Partial- and Whole-Breast Radiotherapy in Low-Risk Breast Cancer-A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The standard treatment for localized low-risk breast cancer is breast-conserving surgery, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and appropriate systemic therapy. As the majority of local recurrences occur at the site of the primary tumor, numerous trials have investigated partial-breast irradiation (PBI) instead of whole-breast treatment (WBI) using a multitude of irradiation techniques and fractionation regimens. This meta-analysis addresses the impact on disease-specific endpoints, such as local and regional control, as well as disease-free survival of PBI compared to that of WBI in published randomized trials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review and searched for randomized trials comparing WBI and PBI in early-stage breast cancer with publication dates after 2009. The meta-analysis was based on the published event rates and the effect sizes for available oncological endpoints of at least two trials reporting on them. We evaluated in-breast tumor recurrences (IBTR), local recurrences at the primary site and elsewhere in the ipsilateral breast, regional recurrences (RR), distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI), disease-free survival (DFS), contralateral breast cancer (CBC), and second primary cancer (SPC). Furthermore, we aimed to assess the impact of different PBI techniques and subgroups on IBTR. We performed all statistical analyses using the inverse variance heterogeneity model to pool effect sizes.

RESULTS

For the intended meta-analysis, we identified 13 trials (overall 15,561 patients) randomizing between PBI and WBI. IBTR was significantly higher after PBI (OR = 1.66; CI-95%: 1.07-2.58; p = 0.024) with an absolute difference of 1.35%. We detected significant heterogeneity in the analysis of the PBI technique with intraoperative radiotherapy resulting in higher local relapse rates (OR = 3.67; CI-95%: 2.28-5.90; p < 0.001). Other PBI techniques did not show differences to WBI in IBTR. Both strategies were equally effective at the primary tumor site, but PBI resulted in statistically more IBTRs elsewhere in the ipsilateral breast. IBTRs after WBI were more likely to be located at the primary tumor bed, whereas they appeared equally distributed within the breast after PBI. RR was also more frequent after PBI (OR = 1.75; CI-95%: 1.07-2.88; p < 0.001), yet we did not detect any differences in DMFI (OR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.89-1.30; p = 0.475). DFS was significantly longer in patients treated with WBI (OR = 1.14; CI-95%: 1.02-1.27; p = 0.003). CBC and SPC were not different in the test groups (OR = 0.81; CI-95%: 0.65-1.01; p = 0.067 and OR = 1.09; CI-95%: 0.85-1.40; p = 0.481, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Limiting the target volume to partial-breast radiotherapy appears to be appropriate when selecting patients with a low risk for local and regional recurrences and using a suitable technique.

No Difference in Overall Survival and Non-Breast Cancer Deaths after Partial Breast Radiotherapy Compared to Whole Breast Radiotherapy-A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Purpose/objective: Adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery is the standard approach in early stage breast cancer. However, the extent of breast tissue that has to be targeted with radiation has not been determined yet. Traditionally, the whole breast was covered by two opposing tangential beams. Several randomized trials have tested partial breast irradiation (PBI) compared to whole breast irradiation (WBI) using different radiation techniques. There is evidence from randomized trials that PBI might result in lower mortality rates compared to WBI. We aimed to reassess this question using current data from randomized trials. Material/methods: We performed a systematic literature review searching for randomized trials comparing WBI and PBI in early stage breast cancer with publication dates after 2009. The meta-analysis was performed using the published event rates and the effect sizes for overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and non-breast cancer death (NBCD) as investigated endpoints. Analysis of subgroups using different radiation techniques was intended. We used hazard ratios (HR) and risk differences (RD) to estimate pooled effect sizes. Statistical analysis was performed using the inverse variance heterogeneity model. Results: We identified eleven studies randomizing between PBI and WBI. We did not find significant differences in OS (n = 14,070; HR = 1.02; CI-95%: 0.89–1.16; p = 0.810, and n = 15,203; RD = −0.001; CI-95%: −0.008–0.006; p = 0.785) and BCSS (n = 15,203; RD = 0.001; CI-95%: −0.002–0.005; p = 0.463). PBI also did not result in a significant decrease of NBCD (n = 15,203; RD = −0.003; CI-95%: −0.010–0.003; p = 0.349). A subgroup analysis by radiation technique also did not point to any detectable differences. Conclusion: In contrast to a previous assessment of mortality, we could not find a detrimental effect of WBI on OS or NBCD. A longer follow-up might be necessary to fully assess the long-term mortality effects of PBI compared to WBI.

Long-term patient-rated cosmetic and satisfactory outcomes of early breast cancer treated with conventional versus hypofractionated breast irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost technique

To compare patient-rated cosmetic and satisfactory outcomes between conventional fractionation with simultaneously integrated boost (C-SIB) vs hypofractionation with SIB (H-SIB) in early breast cancer. Patients with stage I and II breast cancer who received breast-conserving surgery followed by radiation with SIB to tumor bed and completed questionnaire were included in this study. Radiotherapy was as follows: C-SIB arm = 50 Gy and 65 Gy in 25 fractions and H-SIB arm = 43.2 Gy and 52.8 Gy in 16 fractions to the whole breast and tumor bed, respectively. Single cross-sectional assessment of the breast cosmesis was done by patients and radiation oncologist at a follow-up visit. Breast cosmetic and satisfaction scores were collected using a four-point Harvard/NSABP/RTOG cosmesis criteria scale and a four-point Likert-type scale, respectively. Of a total of 114 patients (C-SIB = 57) and (H-SIB = 57) arms, a median time from radiotherapy completion to questionnaire response was 7.2 years. Patient-rated cosmetic outcome in C-SIB vs H-SIB was "excellent" in 40.3% vs 45.6%, "good" in 33.3% vs 42.1%, "fair" in 21.1% vs 10.5%, and "poor" in 5.3% vs 1.8% (P = .288). Corresponding satisfaction was "very satisfied" in 52.6% vs 57.9%, "satisfied" in 40.4% vs 35.1%, "neutral" in 7.0% vs 5.2%, and "unsatisfied" in 0% vs 1.8% (P = .683). Stage I and older age at radiotherapy were predictors for favorable (good or excellent) cosmesis and satisfaction, respectively. In early-stage breast cancer, H-SIB provided a trend for better cosmesis than C-SIB while maintaining satisfaction. The reduction in treatment duration and cost as well as favorable cosmesis outcomes encourages the use of H-SIB.