1
|
Arbab M, Frame R, Alluri P, Parsons D, Lin MH, Cleaton J, Rahimi A. Master Breast Radiation Planning: Simple Guide for Radiation Oncology Residents. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101476. [PMID: 38690296 PMCID: PMC11059315 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
This article focuses on various aspects of breast radiation treatment planning, from simulation to field design. It covers the most common techniques including tangents, mono isocentric, dual isocentric, electron-photon match, and VMAT. This can serve as a guide for radiation oncology residents and medical students to advance their understanding of key aspects of breast radiation treatment and planning processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mona Arbab
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Romona Frame
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Prasanna Alluri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - David Parsons
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Mu-Han Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Jennifer Cleaton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Asal Rahimi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kaidar-Person O, Meattini I, Boersma LJ, Becherini C, Cortes J, Curigliano G, de Azambuja E, Harbeck N, Rugo HS, Del Mastro L, Gennari A, Isacke CM, Vestmø Maraldo M, Marangoni E, Nader Marta G, Mjaaland I, Salvestrini V, Spanic T, Visani L, Morandi A, Lambertini M, Livi L, Coles CE, Poortmans P, Offersen BV. Essential requirements for reporting radiation therapy in breast cancer clinical trials: An international multi-disciplinary consensus endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO). Radiother Oncol 2024; 195:110060. [PMID: 38122852 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) has advocated the establishment of guidelines to optimise precision radiotherapy (RT) in conjunction with contemporary therapeutics for cancer care. Quality assurance in RT (QART) plays a pivotal role in influencing treatment outcomes. Clinical trials incorporating QART protocols have demonstrated improved survival rates with minimal associated toxicity. Nonetheless, in routine clinical practice, there can be variability in the indications for RT, dosage, fractionation, and treatment planning, leading to uncertainty. In pivotal trials reporting outcomes of systemic therapy for breast cancer, there is limited information available regarding RT, and the potential interaction between modern systemic therapy and RT remains largely uncharted. This article is grounded in a consensus recommendation endorsed by ESTRO, formulated by international breast cancer experts. The consensus was reached through a modified Delphi process and was presented at an international meeting convened in Florence, Italy, in June 2023. These recommendations are regarded as both optimal and essential standards, with the latter aiming to define the minimum requirements. A template for a case report form (CRF) has been devised, which can be utilised by all clinical breast cancer trials involving RT. Optimal requirements include adherence to predefined RT planning protocols and centralised QART. Essential requirements aim to reduce variations and deviations from the guidelines in RT, even when RT is not the primary focus of the trial. These recommendations underscore the significance of implementing these practices in both clinical trials and daily clinical routines to generate high-quality data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; The School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel; GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Carlotta Becherini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Javier Cortes
- International Breast Cancer Center (IBCC), Pangaea Oncology, Quironsalud Group & Medical Scientia Innovation Research (MedSIR), Barcelona, Spain; Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Giuseppe Curigliano
- Division of New Drugs and Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato - Oncology (DIPO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Evandro de Azambuja
- Institut Jules Bordet and l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Nadia Harbeck
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and CCCMunich, Breast Center, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany
| | - Hope S Rugo
- Medicine and Winterhof Family Professor of Breast Oncology, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Lucia Del Mastro
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Alessandra Gennari
- Department of Translational Medicine, University Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
| | - Clare M Isacke
- Breast Cancer Now Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Maja Vestmø Maraldo
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Center of Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Elisabetta Marangoni
- Laboratory of Preclinical Investigation, Translational Research Department, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Gustavo Nader Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Ingvil Mjaaland
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
| | - Viola Salvestrini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Tanja Spanic
- Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy; Europa Donna Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Luca Visani
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Andrea Morandi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Matteo Lambertini
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Philip Poortmans
- Department of radiation oncology, Iridium Netwerk, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jiang T, Tian J, Lei P, Meng C, Fu J, Cao L, Cheng J, Zhou F, Zhang H, Song H, Lu H, Wei X. The impact of bolus on clinical outcomes for post-mastectomy breast cancer patients treated with IMRT: data from China. Radiat Oncol 2024; 19:64. [PMID: 38807176 PMCID: PMC11134933 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-024-02456-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2023] [Accepted: 05/16/2024] [Indexed: 05/30/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aims to investigate the effects of chest wall bolus in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technology on clinical outcomes for post-mastectomy breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study included patients with invasive carcinoma ((y)pT0-4, (y)pN0-3) who received photon IMRT after mastectomy at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from 2014 to 2019. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received daily bolus application or not, and the baseline characteristics were matched using propensity score matching (PSM). Cumulative incidence (CI) of local recurrence (LR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated with a log-rank test. Acute skin toxicity and late radiation pneumonia was analyzed using chi-square test. RESULTS A total of 529 patients were included in this study, among whom 254 (48%) patients received bolus application. The median follow-up time was 60 months. After matching, 175 well-paired patients were selected. The adjusted 5-year outcomes (95% confidence interval) in patients treated with and without bolus were, respectively: CI of LR 2.42% (0.04-4.74) versus 2.38% (0.05-4.65), CI of LRR 2.42% (0.04-4.74) versus 3.59% (0.73-6.37), DFS 88.12% (83.35-93.18) versus 84.69% (79.42-90.30), OS 94.21% (90.79-97.76) versus 95.86% (92.91-98.91). No correlation between bolus application and skin toxicity (P = 0.555) and late pneumonia (P = 0.333) was observed. CONCLUSIONS The study revealed a low recurrence rate using IMRT technology. The daily used 5 mm chest wall bolus was not associated with improved clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tao Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Jiao Tian
- Department of Medicine, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Peijie Lei
- Department of Medicine, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Chunliu Meng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Jialei Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Lianjing Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Jingjing Cheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Fei Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Hongjun Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Hao Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China
| | - Haijun Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China.
| | - Xiaojuan Wei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266700, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhang H, Song D, Xie L, Zhan N, Xie W, Zhang J. Postmastectomy radiotherapy in breast reconstruction: Current controversies and trends. CANCER INNOVATION 2024; 3:e104. [PMID: 38948530 PMCID: PMC11212305 DOI: 10.1002/cai2.104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 09/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/02/2024]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is an essential component of combined therapy for early-stage, high-risk breast cancer. Breast reconstruction (BR) is often considered for patients with breast cancer who have undergone mastectomy. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the optimal approach to combining PMRT with BR in the treatment of breast cancer. PMRT may increase the risk of complications and prevent good aesthetic results after BR, while BR may increase the complexity of PMRT and the radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues. The purpose of this review is to give a broad overview and summary of the current controversies and trends in PMRT and BR in the context of the most recent literature available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Honghong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Dandan Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Liangxi Xie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Ning Zhan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Wenjia Xie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Jianming Zhang
- Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Identification and Control of Complex Dynamic System, Quanzhou Institute of Equipment Manufacturing, Haixi InstitutesChinese Academy of SciencesQuanzhouFujianChina
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tang C, Yuan J, Guo H, Dai Z, Liu B, Xi H, He J, Niu S. Quantify the Effect of Air Gap Errors on Skin Dose for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024; 23:15330338241258566. [PMID: 38803305 PMCID: PMC11135118 DOI: 10.1177/15330338241258566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Determining the impact of air gap errors on the skin dose in postoperative breast cancer radiotherapy under dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques. Methods: This was a retrospective study that involved 55 patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy following modified radical mastectomy. All plans employed tangential IMRT, with a prescription dose of 50 Gy, and bolus added solely to the chest wall. Simulated air gap depth errors of 2 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm were introduced at depression or inframammary fold areas on the skin, resulting in the creation of air gaps named Air2, Air3, and Air5. Utilizing a multivariable GEE, the average dose (Dmean) of the local skin was determined to evaluate its relationship with air gap volume and the lateral beam's average angle (AALB). Additionally, an analysis was conducted on the impact of gaps on local skin. Results: When simulating an air gap depth error of 2 mm, the average Dmean in plan2 increased by 0.46 Gy compared to the initial plan (planO) (p < .001). For the 3-mm air gap, the average Dmean of plan3 was 0.51 Gy higher than that of planO (p < .001). When simulating the air gap as 5 mm, the average Dmean of plan5 significantly increased by 0.59 Gy compared to planO (p < .001). The TCP results showed a similar trend to those of Dmean. As the depth of air gap error increases, NTCP values also gradually rise. The linear regression of the multivariable GEE equation indicates that the volume of air gaps and the AALB are strong predictors of Dmean. Conclusion: With small irregular air gap errors simulated in 55 patients, the values of skin's Dmean, TCP, and NTCP increased. A multivariable linear GEE regression model may effectively explain the impact of air gap volume and AALB on the local skin.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunbo Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
- Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Ganzhou, China
| | - Jun Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
- Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Ganzhou, China
| | - Hailiang Guo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
- Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Ganzhou, China
| | - Zhongyang Dai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
- Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Ganzhou, China
| | - Biaoshui Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Haiyan Xi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China
| | - Ji He
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shanzhou Niu
- School of Mathematics and Computer Science / Ganzhou Key Laboratory of Computational Imaging, Gannan Normal University, Ganzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chen XM, Xu CD, Zeng LP, Huang XT, Chen AQ, Liu L, Lin LW, Jia LC, Li H, Jiang XB. Analysis of Individualized Silicone Rubber Bolus Using Fan Beam Computed Tomography in Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: A Dosimetric Evaluation and Skin Acute Radiation Dermatitis Survey. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024; 23:15330338241229367. [PMID: 38297814 PMCID: PMC10832424 DOI: 10.1177/15330338241229367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 11/28/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 02/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the dosimetric effects of using individualized silicone rubber (SR) bolus on the target area and organs at risk (OARs) during postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), as well as evaluate skin acute radiation dermatitis (ARD). Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 30 patients with breast cancer. Each patient was prepared with an individualized SR bolus of 3 mm thickness. Fan-beam computed tomography (FBCT) was performed at the first and second fractions, and then once a week for a total of 5 times. Dosimetric metrics such as homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), skin dose (SD), and OARs including the heart, lungs, and spinal cord were compared between the original plan and the FBCTs. The acute side effects were recorded. Results: In targets' dosimetric metrics, there were no significant differences in Dmean and V105% between planning computed tomography (CT) and actual treatments (P > .05), while the differences in D95%, V95%, HI, and CI were statistically significant (P < .05). In OARs, there were no significant differences between the Dmean, V5, and V20 of the affected lung, V5 of the heart and Dmax of the spinal cord (P > .05) except the V30 of affected lung, which was slightly lower than the planning CT (P < .05). In SD, both Dmax and Dmean in actual treatments were increased than plan A, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05), while the skin-V20 and skin-V30 has no difference. Among the 30 patients, only one patient had no skin ARD, and 5 patients developed ARD of grade 2, while the remaining 24 patients were grade 1. Conclusion: The OR bolus showed good anastomoses and high interfraction reproducibility with the chest wall, and did not cause deformation during irradiation. It ensured accurate dose delivery of the target and OARs during the treatment, which may increase SD by over 101%. In this study, no cases of grade 3 skin ARD were observed. However, the potential of using OR bolus to reduce grade 1 and 2 skin ARD warrants further investigation with a larger sample size.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xue-mei Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Chen-di Xu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Li-ping Zeng
- Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, P.R. China
| | - Xiao-tong Huang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Ao-qiang Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Lu Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Liu-wen Lin
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Le-cheng Jia
- Shenzhen United Imaging Research Institute of Innovative Medical Equipment, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, P.R. China
| | - Hua Li
- Shenzhen United Imaging Research Institute of Innovative Medical Equipment, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, P.R. China
| | - Xiao-bo Jiang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wang J, Xiang ZZ, Tan CF, Zeng YY, Yang T, Wei XY, Yu ST, Dai ZL, Xu NY, Liu L. Individualized 3D-printed bolus promotes precise postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients receiving breast reconstruction. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1239636. [PMID: 38152364 PMCID: PMC10751906 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1239636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 12/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 3D-printed tissue compensations in breast cancer patients receiving breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Methods and materials We enrolled patients with breast cancer receiving breast reconstruction and PMRT. The dose distribution of target and skin, conformability, and dose limit of organs at risk (OARs) were collected to evaluate the efficacy of the 3D-printed bolus. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiation injury classification was used to evaluated the skin toxicities. Results A total of 30 patients diagnosed between October 2019 to July 2021 were included for analysis. Among all the patients, the 3D-printed bolus could ensure the dose coverage of planning target volume (PTV) [homogeneity index (HI) 0.12 (range: 0.08-0.18)], and the mean doses of D99%, D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% and Dmean were 4606.29cGy, 4797.04cGy, 4943.32cGy, 5216.07cGy, 5236.10cGy, 5440.28cGy and 5462.10cGy, respectively. The bolus demonstrated an excellent conformability, and the mean air gaps between the bolus and the chest wall in five quadrants were 0.04cm, 0.18cm, 0.04cm, 0.04cm and 0.07cm, respectively. In addition, the bolus had acceptable dosage limit of OARs [ipsilateral lung: Dmean 1198.68 cGy, V5 46.10%, V20 21.66%, V30 16.31%); heart: Dmean 395.40 cGy, V30 1.02%, V40 0.22%; spinal cord planning risk volume (PRV): Dmax 1634 cGy] and skin toxicity (grade 1, 76.0%; grade 2, 21.0%; grade 3, 3.3%). Conclusion The 3D-printed bolus offers advantages in terms of dose uniformity and controllable skin toxicities in patients receiving breast reconstruction and PMRT. Further research is needed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of the 3Dprinted bolus in this patient subset.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lei Liu
- Division of Head & Neck Tumor Multimodality Treatment, Cancer Center, West, China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Copson ER, Abraham JE, Braybrooke JP, Cameron D, McIntosh SA, Michie CO, Okines AFC, Palmieri C, Raja F, Roylance R, Spensley S. Expert UK consensus on the definition of high risk of recurrence in HER2-negative early breast cancer: A modified Delphi panel. Breast 2023; 72:103582. [PMID: 37769521 PMCID: PMC10539921 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.103582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2023] [Revised: 09/14/2023] [Accepted: 09/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is currently no standardised definition for patients at high risk of recurrence of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (eBC; stages 1-3) after surgery. This modified Delphi panel aimed to establish expert UK consensus on this definition, separately considering hormone receptor (HR)-positive and triple-negative (TN) patients. METHODS Over three consecutive rounds, results were collected from 29, 24 and 22 UK senior breast cancer oncologists and surgeons, respectively. The first round aimed to determine key risk factors in each patient subgroup; subsequent rounds aimed to establish appropriate risk thresholds. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥70% of respondents. RESULTS Expert consensus was achieved on need to assess age, tumour size, tumour grade, number of positive lymph nodes, inflammatory breast cancer and risk prediction tools in all HER2-negative patients. There was additional agreement on use of tumour profiling tests and biomarkers in HR-positive patients, and pathologic complete response (pCR) status in TN patients. Thresholds for high recurrence risk were subsequently agreed. In HR-positive patients, these included age <35 years, tumour size >5 cm (as independent risk factors); tumour grade 3 (independently and combined with other high-risk factors); number of positive nodes ≥4 (independently) and ≥1 (combined). For TN patients, the following thresholds reached consensus, both independently and in combination with other factors: tumour size >2 cm, tumour grade 3, number of positive nodes ≥1. CONCLUSIONS The results may be a valuable reference point to guide recurrence risk assessment and decision-making after surgery in the HER2-negative eBC population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E R Copson
- Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
| | - J E Abraham
- Precision Breast Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - J P Braybrooke
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - D Cameron
- Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - S A McIntosh
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - C O Michie
- Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - A F C Okines
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - C Palmieri
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK; Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - F Raja
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; North Middlesex University Hospital, North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - R Roylance
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - S Spensley
- Musgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Yuan J, Alcorn SR. Recurrent Breast Cancer With Contralateral Axillary Metastasis Treated With Curative Intent. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:528. [PMID: 37739603 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.03.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 03/05/2023] [Indexed: 09/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jianling Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Sara R Alcorn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Aristei C, Kaidar-Person O, Boersma L, Leonardi MC, Offersen B, Franco P, Arenas M, Bourgier C, Pfeffer R, Kouloulias V, Bölükbaşı Y, Meattini I, Coles C, Luis AM, Masiello V, Palumbo I, Morganti AG, Perrucci E, Tombolini V, Krengli M, Marazzi F, Trigo L, Borghesi S, Ciabattoni A, Ratoša I, Valentini V, Poortmans P. The 2022 Assisi Think Tank Meeting: White paper on optimising radiation therapy for breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023:104035. [PMID: 37244324 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2023] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The present white paper, referring to the 4th Assisi Think Tank Meeting on breast cancer, reviews state-of-the-art data, on-going studies and research proposals. < 70% agreement in an online questionnaire identified the following clinical challenges: 1: Nodal RT in patients who have a) 1-2 positive sentinel nodes without ALND (axillary lymph node dissection); b) cN1 disease transformed into ypN0 by primary systemic therapy and c) 1-3 positive nodes after mastectomy and ALND. 2. The optimal combination of RT and immunotherapy (IT), patient selection, IT-RT timing, and RT optimal dose, fractionation and target volume. Most experts agreed that RT- IT combination does not enhance toxicity. 3: Re-irradiation for local relapse converged on the use of partial breast irradiation after second breast conserving surgery. Hyperthermia aroused support but is not widely available. Further studies are required to finetune best practice, especially given the increasing use of re-irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
| | - O Kaidar-Person
- Breast Radiation Unit, Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - L Boersma
- Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - M C Leonardi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - B Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - P Franco
- Depatment of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont and Department of Radiation Oncology, 'Maggiore della Carita`' University Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - M Arenas
- Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Sant Hoan de Reus, IISPV, Spain
| | - C Bourgier
- Radiation Oncology, ICM-Val d' Aurelle, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - R Pfeffer
- Oncology Institute, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion University Medical School, Israel
| | - V Kouloulias
- 2nd Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
| | - Y Bölükbaşı
- Koc University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - I Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence & Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - C Coles
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK
| | - A Montero Luis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - V Masiello
- Unità Operativa di Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagine, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - I Palumbo
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - A G Morganti
- DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University; Bologna, Italy
| | - E Perrucci
- Radiation Oncology Section, Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - V Tombolini
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Science, University "La Sapienza", Roma, Italy
| | - M Krengli
- DISCOG, Università di Padova e Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IRCCS
| | - F Marazzi
- Unità Operativa di Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagine, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - L Trigo
- Service of Brachytherapy, Department of Image and Radioncology, Instituto Português Oncologia Porto Francisco Gentil E.P.E., Portugal
| | - S Borghesi
- Radiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Italy
| | - A Ciabattoni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, San Filippo Neri Hospital, ASL Rome 1, Rome, Italy
| | - I Ratoša
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - V Valentini
- Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore e Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - P Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Kankernetwerk, Antwerp, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Guebert A, Roumeliotis M, Wu CHD, Long K, Logie N, Graham T, Gourley A, Craighead P, Sia M, Quirk S. The transition in practice to reduce bolus use in post-mastectomy radiotherapy: A dosimetric study of skin and subcutaneous tissue. Med Dosim 2023; 48:113-117. [PMID: 36907800 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2023.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Revised: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/12/2023]
Abstract
To inform clinical practice for women receiving post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), this study demonstrates the dosimetric impact of removing daily bolus on skin and subcutaneous tissue. Two planning strategies were used: clinical field-based (n = 30) and volume-based planning (n = 10). The clinical field-based plans were created with bolus and recalculated without bolus for comparison. The volume-based plans were created with bolus to ensure a minimum target coverage of the chest wall PTV and recalculated without bolus. In each scenario, the dose to superficial structures, including skin (3 mm and 5 mm) and subcutaneous tissue (a 2 mm layer, 3 mm deep from surface) were reported. Additionally, the difference in the clinically evaluated dosimetry to skin and subcutaneous tissue in volume-based plans were recalculated using Acuros (AXB) and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) algorithm. For all treatment planning strategies, chest wall coverage (V90%) was maintained. As expected, superficial structures demonstrate significant loss in coverage. The largest difference observed in the most superficial 3 mm where V90% coverage is reduced from a mean (± standard deviation) of 95.1% (± 2.8) to 18.9% (± 5.6) for clinical field-based treatments with and without bolus, respectively. For volume-based planning, the subcutaneous tissue maintains a V90% of 90.5% (± 7.0) compared to the clinical field-based planning coverage of 84.4% (± 8.0). In all skin and subcutaneous tissue, the AAA algorithm underestimates the volume of the 90% isodose. Removing bolus results in minimal dosimetric differences in the chest wall and significantly lower skin dose while dose to the subcutaneous tissue is maintained. Unless the skin has disease involvement, the most superficial 3 mm is not considered part of the target volume. The continued use of the AAA algorithm is supported for the PMRT setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra Guebert
- Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Michael Roumeliotis
- Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | | | - Karen Long
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Natalie Logie
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | | | | | - Peter Craighead
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Michael Sia
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Sarah Quirk
- Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Risk-Adapted Target Delineation for Breast Cancer: Controversies and Considerations. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:e115-e120. [PMID: 36748210 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The advent of computed tomography-based planning coupled with modern tools for target delineation and hypofractionated treatment schedules has increased efficiency and throughput for patients with breast cancer. While the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in reducing locoregional recurrences is established, disentangling local versus regional recurrence risks with modern treatment protocols has become an area of active research to de-escalate treatment. Delineation guidelines for nodal regions either attempt to replicate results of conventional RT techniques by translating bony landmarks to clinical target volumes or use landmarks based on the fact that lymphatic channels run along the vasculature. Because direct comparisons of both approaches are implausible, mapping studies of nodal recurrences have reported on the proportion of nodes included in these delineation guidelines, and larger, bony, landmark-based guidelines appear intuitively appealing for patients with unfavorable risk factors. A pooled analysis of these studies is reported here, along with literature supporting the exclusion of the true chest wall from postmastectomy/breast-conserving surgery clinical target volumes and the selective (versus routine) use of bolus during postmastectomy RT. The risk-adapted approach suggested here accounts for the risk of recurrence as well as toxicity and endorses nuanced target volume delineation rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Collapse
|
13
|
Tramm T, Kaidar-Person O. Optimising post-operative radiation therapy after oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures. Breast 2023; 69:366-374. [PMID: 37023565 PMCID: PMC10119683 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.03.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Revised: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Surgical techniques for breast cancer have been refined over the past decades to deliver an aesthetic outcome as close as possible to the contralateral intact breast. Current surgery further allows excellent aesthetic outcome even in case of mastectomy, by performing skin sparing or nipple sparing mastectomy in combination with breast reconstruction. In this review we discuss how to optimise post-operative radiation therapy after oncoplastic and breast reconstructive procedures, including dose, fractionation, volumes, surgical margins, and boost application.
Collapse
|
14
|
Clinical outcomes of curative-intent multimodal management of chemorefractory nonmetastatic inflammatory breast cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:30-37. [PMID: 35648170 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01960-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2022] [Accepted: 05/08/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Chemorefractory nonmetastatic inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) which progresses under neoadjuvant chemotherapy poses specific therapeutic challenges: either pursuing a curative-intent treatment with a salvage combination of radiotherapy and surgery or switching to second-line systemic treatments despite the absence of metastasis. Due to the rarity of this situation, no specific management guidelines exist and the outcomes of these patients remain uncertain. In this retrospective observational study, we aimed to report the clinical outcomes of patients treated in a curative intent for chemorefractory nonmetastatic IBC, with a multimodal salvage treatment combining radiotherapy and surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS This single-center retrospective observational study included all chemorefractory nonmetastatic IBC treated at the Institut Curie (Paris, France). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) were calculated from the time of diagnosis and from the time of neoadjuvant chemotherapy interruption. RESULTS Between January 2010 and January 2018, 7 patients presented with chemorefractory nonmetastatic IBC with a progressive disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, chemorefractory IBC patients were young (median age of 50 years), had a good performance status, and usually presented with node-positive tumors characterized by a combination of adverse histological factors such as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), grade III, and high proliferation index. From the date of pathological diagnosis, 1‑year OS, DFS, and LRRFS were 64.3%, 53.6%, and 71.4%, respectively. From the date of neoadjuvant chemotherapy interruption, 1‑year OS, DFS, and LRRFS were 47.6%, 19.0%, and 45.7%, respectively, and median OS, DFS, and LRRFS were 8.3, 5.0, and 5.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION The prognosis of chemorefractory nonmetastatic IBC treated with a multimodal approach combining surgery and radiotherapy is particularly reserved, despite the curative intent of the salvage treatment and the lack of distant metastasis at the time of treatment. Optimal treatment modalities are still to be defined in this rare but critical presentation of IBC.
Collapse
|
15
|
Jamora K, Cruz-Lim EM, Cereno RE, Castillo MR, Baldivia K. Hypofractionated radiotherapy in postmastectomy locally advanced breast cancer: an interim report on acute toxicities and dosimetry. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022; 27:943-953. [PMID: 36632303 PMCID: PMC9826664 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2022.0102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There is a growing interest in the use of hypofractionation in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Here, we present an interim report on the acute toxicities and the dosimetry of a 15-day hypofractionated regimen. Materials and methods Patients aged 18-75 years who underwent mastectomy and had pathological stage IIB-IIIC or any clinical stage who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were treated with PMRT at a dose of 43.5 Gy in 15 fractions. Acute toxicities were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Results Between September 2020 and September 2021, 92 patients were enrolled in the study. Majority experienced grade 1 dermatitis during the course of treatment. Skin toxicities peaked two weeks after PMRT in which 57 patients (62%) had grade 2 dermatitis and 6 patients (7%) had grade 3 dermatitis. Most resolved one month after treatment, with all resolving at three months. Grade 2 fatigue occurred in 4 patients (4%). There were no grade 3 fatigue or pneumonitis of any grade. The average V95% for the chest wall, axilla, and supraclavicular fossa were 91.5%, 99.3%, and 97.5%, respectively. Average ipsilateral lung V17 was 43.6%, while the mean heart dose averaged at 3.46 Gy. Conclusion This interim report showed that hypofractionated PMRT is associated with a low incidence of clinically significant acute toxicities. With the use of the 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy technique and volume-based planning, adequate target volume coverage and acceptable heart doses were achieved, although with a slightly higher ipsilateral lung dose.
Collapse
|
16
|
Sapienza LG, Maia MAC, Gomes MJL, Mattar A, Baiocchi G, Calsavara VF. Randomized clinical trial of tissue equivalent bolus prescription in postmastectomy radiotherapy stratified by skin involvement status. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 39:100570. [PMID: 36594077 PMCID: PMC9803916 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.100570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To assess the impact and optimize the prescription of tissue-equivalent bolus in postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), we compared the use of different bolus regimens tailored by skin involvement status. Methods Patients with breast cancer who required PMRT were recruited (NCT01925651) and classified into two groups: standard-risk (SR, without skin involvement) and high-risk (HR, with skin involvement). SR was randomized between no bolus or 5 mm-bolus on alternate days and HR between 5 mm-bolus on alternate days or daily. Conventional fractionation (50.4 Gy; 1.8 Gy/daily) was used. Acute skin toxicity was evaluated blindly and the radiodermatitis-specific toxicity index [rads-TI] calculated. Subsequently, patients were followed up to assess oncologic outcomes, focusing on chest wall (CW) local control. Results Fifty-eight patients were enrolled (34 SR and 24 HR). Baseline characteristics were similar between arms within the same risk group. Overall, maximal radiodermatitis rates were 29.4 % (G2) and 15.7 % (G3). In the SR group, no difference existed in G2 radiodermatitis incidence between the subgroups (p = 0.70) and no G3 events occurred. In the HR group, incidences of G2 (100 % vs 44.5 %, p = 0.01) and G3 radiodermatitis (70 % vs 11.1 %, p = 0.02) were higher with daily bolus. After adjusting for confounders, the daily bolus had a higher incidence of G2 (p = 0.03), G3 radiodermatitis (p = 0.04), and worse rads-TI (p < 0.01). After a median follow-up of 6.2 years, the 5-year local control was 95.8 % (95 %CI: 88.2 %-100 %) in the SR and 91.7 % (95 %CI: 77.3 %-100 %) in the HR groups. Per risk group, there was no difference in local control between the SR (p = 0.90) or the HR bolus regimens (p = 0.70). Conclusion Daily 5 mm bolus prescription significantly increased the overall toxicity burden. In this preliminary study, within the same risk group, no detriment in CW local control was detected with less intense bolus regimens (SR: no bolus; HR: alternate-days bolus). Additionally, the rads-TI was able to distinguish overall radiodermatitis burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas Gomes Sapienza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA,Corresponding author at: 5925 Almeda Rd #11609, Houston, TX 77004, USA.
| | | | - Maria José Leite Gomes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Federal dos Servidores do Estado (HFSE-RJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
| | - André Mattar
- Department of Mastology, Hospital Pérola Byington, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | - Glauco Baiocchi
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | - Vinicius Fernando Calsavara
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Samuel Oschin Cancer Center, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gong P, Dai G, Wu X, Wang X, Xie L, Xu S, Zhong R. Application of thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) bolus in postmastectomy radiotherapy. Breast 2022; 66:317-323. [PMID: 36463642 PMCID: PMC9719108 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Revised: 11/10/2022] [Accepted: 11/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the planned dose, in vivo dosimetry, acute skin toxicity, pain, and distress using Thermoplastic Elastomer (TPE) bolus for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-two PMRT patients with TPE bolus (17 patients for 25 fractions, 15 patients for the first 20 fractions) were selected for the study. The acute skin toxicity, pain, and psychological distress were assessed from the first treatment week to the fourth week after the end of treatment. At the first treatment, the MOSFET was used in vivo dosimetry measurement. RESULTS In vivo dosimetry with the bolus, the dose deviation ranged from -6.22% to -1.56% for 5 points. The presence of grade 1 and 2 skin toxicity reached its peak (70.0% and 13.3%) in the sixth week. Two patients (6.6%) with 25 fractions bolus experienced moist desquamation in the fifth and seventh week, with pain score 2 and 3, and interruptions of 3 and 5 days, respectively. The incidence of pain score 1, 2, and 3 peaked in the fifth (33.3%), fourth (33.3%), and seventh (10.0%) week. No patients experienced grade 3 skin toxicity and severe pain. One patient had significant anxiety, and two patients had significant depression. CONCLUSION The TPE bolus can accurately fit skin and improve the surface dose to more than 90%. Twenty fractions with TPE bolus had similar skin toxicity and pain to those without bolus and did not increase patients' distress and clinical workload, compared with the literature's data, which is an alternative to the 3D printing bolus for PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pan Gong
- Radiotherapy Physics and Technology Center, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China
| | - Guyu Dai
- Radiotherapy Physics and Technology Center, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China
| | - Xiaoyu Wu
- Department of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine/Thoracic Surgery, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China
| | - Xuetao Wang
- Radiotherapy Physics and Technology Center, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China
| | - Li Xie
- Department of Radiotherapy/Department of Head and Neck Oncology, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China
| | - Shuni Xu
- Radiotherapy Physics and Technology Center, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China
| | - Renming Zhong
- Radiotherapy Physics and Technology Center, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, PR China.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Rugo HS, Singer L. First, do no harm: risk of secondary cancer after breast cancer treatment. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:1350-1352. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00627-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Accepted: 10/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
19
|
Wang X, Zhao J, Xiang Z, Wang X, Zeng Y, Luo T, Yan X, Zhang Z, Wang F, Liu L. 3D-printed bolus ensures the precise postmastectomy chest wall radiation therapy for breast cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:964455. [PMID: 36119487 PMCID: PMC9478602 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.964455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the values of a 3D-printed bolus ensuring the precise postmastectomy chest wall radiation therapy for breast cancer. Methods and materials In the preclinical study on the anthropomorphic phantom, the 3D-printed bolus was used for dosimetry and fitness evaluation. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) were assessed, including Dmin, Dmax, Dmean, D95%, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and organs at risk (OARs). The absolute percentage differences (|%diff|) between the theory and fact skin dose were also estimated, and the follow-up was conducted for potential skin side effects. Results In preclinical studies, a 3D-printed bolus can better ensure the radiation coverage of PTV (HI 0.05, CI 99.91%), the dose accuracy (|%diff| 0.99%), and skin fitness (mean air gap 1.01 mm). Of the 27 eligible patients, we evaluated the radiation dose parameter (median(min–max): Dmin 4967(4789–5099) cGy, Dmax 5447(5369–5589) cGy, Dmean 5236(5171–5323) cGy, D95% 5053(4936–5156) cGy, HI 0.07 (0.06–0.17), and CI 99.94% (97.41%–100%)) and assessed the dose of OARs (ipsilateral lung: Dmean 1341(1208–1385) cGy, V5 48.06%(39.75%–48.97%), V20 24.55%(21.58%–26.93%), V30 18.40%(15.96%–19.16%); heart: Dmean 339(138–640) cGy, V30 1.10%(0%–6.14%), V40 0.38%(0%–4.39%); spinal cord PRV: Dmax 639(389–898) cGy). The skin doses in vivo were Dtheory 208.85(203.16–212.53) cGy, Dfact 209.53(204.14–214.42) cGy, and |%diff| 1.77% (0.89–2.94%). Of the 360 patients enrolled in the skin side effect follow-up study (including the above 27 patients), grade 1 was the most common toxicity (321, 89.2%), some of which progressing to grade 2 or grade 3 (32, 8.9% or 7, 1.9%); the radiotherapy interruption rate was 1.1%. Conclusion A 3D-printed bolus can guarantee the precise radiation dose on skin surface, good fitness to skin, and controllable acute skin toxicity, which possesses a great clinical application value in postmastectomy chest call radiation therapy for breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiran Wang
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jianling Zhao
- Department of Radiotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zhongzheng Xiang
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xuetao Wang
- Department of Radiotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Yuanyuan Zeng
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Ting Luo
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Clinical Research Center for Breast, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xi Yan
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Clinical Research Center for Breast, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zhuang Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Feng Wang
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Clinical Research Center for Breast, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Lei Liu
- Department of Head and Neck and Mammary Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Clinical Research Center for Breast, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- *Correspondence: Lei Liu,
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
de Sousa CFPM, Neto ES, Chen MJ, Silva MLG, Abrahão CH, Ramos H, Fogaroli RC, de Castro DG, Favareto SL, Pinto PJJ, Makdissi FBA, Pellizzon ACA, Gondim GRM. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy bolus associated complications in patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:101010. [DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 06/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
21
|
Yehia ZA, Punglia RS, Wong J. Integration of Radiation and Reconstruction After Mastectomy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2022; 32:237-244. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2022.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
22
|
Weber WP, Shaw J, Pusic A, Wyld L, Morrow M, King T, Mátrai Z, Heil J, Fitzal F, Potter S, Rubio IT, Cardoso MJ, Gentilini OD, Galimberti V, Sacchini V, Rutgers EJT, Benson J, Allweis TM, Haug M, Paulinelli RR, Kovacs T, Harder Y, Gulluoglu BM, Gonzalez E, Faridi A, Elder E, Dubsky P, Blohmer JU, Bjelic-Radisic V, Barry M, Hay SD, Bowles K, French J, Reitsamer R, Koller R, Schrenk P, Kauer-Dorner D, Biazus J, Brenelli F, Letzkus J, Saccilotto R, Joukainen S, Kauhanen S, Karhunen-Enckell U, Hoffmann J, Kneser U, Kühn T, Kontos M, Tampaki EC, Carmon M, Hadar T, Catanuto G, Garcia-Etienne CA, Koppert L, Gouveia PF, Lagergren J, Svensjö T, Maggi N, Kappos EA, Schwab FD, Castrezana L, Steffens D, Krol J, Tausch C, Günthert A, Knauer M, Katapodi MC, Bucher S, Hauser N, Kurzeder C, Mucklow R, Tsoutsou PG, Sezer A, Çakmak GK, Karanlik H, Fairbrother P, Romics L, Montagna G, Urban C, Walker M, Formenti SC, Gruber G, Zimmermann F, Zwahlen DR, Kuemmel S, El-Tamer M, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Kaidar-Person O, Gnant M, Poortmans P, de Boniface J. Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy. Breast 2022; 63:123-139. [PMID: 35366506 PMCID: PMC8976143 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2021] [Revised: 03/03/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. Methods A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. Results The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. Conclusions The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR Autologous breast reconstruction is increasingly preferred over implants in the setting of radiation therapy. Use of patient-reported outcomes is endorsed. Shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning. There is a need for randomised phase III trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Walter Paul Weber
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
| | - Jane Shaw
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Pusic
- Brigham and Women's/Dana Farber Cancer Center, USA
| | - Lynda Wyld
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Monica Morrow
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Tari King
- Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital / Dana Farber Cancer Institute, USA
| | - Zoltán Mátrai
- Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Jörg Heil
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Medical School, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Florian Fitzal
- Department of Surgery and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Shelley Potter
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, UK
| | - Isabel T Rubio
- Breast Surgical Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Maria-Joao Cardoso
- Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, And Nova Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | | | - Virgilio Sacchini
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emiel J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - John Benson
- Cambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TRUST, School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tanir M Allweis
- Hadassah Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Martin Haug
- Breast Center and Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Handsurgery University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Regis R Paulinelli
- Federal University of Goiás, Araújo Jorge Hospital, Goiás Anti-Cancer Association, Goiás, Brazil
| | - Tibor Kovacs
- Jiahui Internatioonal Hospital Shanghai, China; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust London, UK
| | - Yves Harder
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università Della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | | | - Eduardo Gonzalez
- Departament of Mastology, Breast Unit- Instituto de Oncología Angel H Roffo, Buenos Aires Univesity. Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Andree Faridi
- Department of Senology/Breast Center, University Hospital Bonn, Germany
| | - Elisabeth Elder
- Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Peter Dubsky
- Department of Surgery and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Breast Center, Hirslanden Clinic St. Anna, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Jens-Uwe Blohmer
- Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Vesna Bjelic-Radisic
- Breast Unit, Helios University Hospital, University Witten/Herdecke, Wuppertal, Germany
| | - Mitchel Barry
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Susanne Dieroff Hay
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, President, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Kimberly Bowles
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Not Putting on A Shirt, Pittsburgh, USA
| | - James French
- Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Roland Reitsamer
- Breast Center Salzburg, University Clinic Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Rupert Koller
- Department of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vienna Health Services, Clinic Landstrasse and Clinic Ottakring, Vienna, Austria
| | - Peter Schrenk
- Breast Cancer Center, Kepler University Hospital, Linz, Austria
| | | | - Jorge Biazus
- Division of Breast Surgery, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Fabricio Brenelli
- Breast Oncology Division, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Jaime Letzkus
- San Borja Arriaran Clinical Hospital, University of Chile, Chile
| | | | | | - Susanna Kauhanen
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ulla Karhunen-Enckell
- Tampere University Hospital, Department of Surgery and Tays Cancer Center, Tampere, Finland
| | - Juergen Hoffmann
- Breast Center, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Ulrich Kneser
- Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen/Rhine, Hand and Plastic Surgery, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Kühn
- Interdisciplinary Breast Center, Klinikum Esslingen, Germany
| | | | - Ekaterini Christina Tampaki
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive Surgeryand Burn Unit, KAT Athens Hospital and Trauma Center, Athens, Greece
| | | | - Tal Hadar
- Hadassah Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Giuseppe Catanuto
- Multidisciplinary Breast Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy
| | | | - Linetta Koppert
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Pedro F Gouveia
- Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, And Nova Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Jakob Lagergren
- Department of Surgery, Capio St Goran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Tor Svensjö
- Department of Surgery, Central Hospital, Kristianstad, Sweden
| | - Nadia Maggi
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Elisabeth A Kappos
- Breast Center and Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Handsurgery University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Daniel Steffens
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Janna Krol
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Michael Knauer
- Breast Center Eastern Switzerland, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | - Maria C Katapodi
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Susanne Bucher
- Breast Center, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Nik Hauser
- Breast Center, Hirslanden Clinic Aarau, Aarau, Frauenarztzentrum Aargau AG, Baden, Switzerland
| | - Christian Kurzeder
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Rosine Mucklow
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Pelagia G Tsoutsou
- University Hospital Geneva, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Atakan Sezer
- Department of Surgery, Trakya University Medical School Hospital, Turkey
| | - Güldeniz Karadeniz Çakmak
- Department of Surgery, The School of Medicine, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
| | | | - Patricia Fairbrother
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Association Breast Surgery UKBCC, Kedleston, UK
| | - Laszlo Romics
- Department of Surgery, New Victoria Hospital, Glasgow, UK
| | - Giacomo Montagna
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Cicero Urban
- Breast Unit, Hospital Nossa Senhora Das Graças, Curitiba, Brazil
| | - Melanie Walker
- Breast Endocrine and General Surgery Unit, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia; Breast Surgeons of Australia and New Zealand (BreastSurgANZ), Australia
| | - Silvia C Formenti
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, USA
| | - Guenther Gruber
- Institute for Radiotherapy, Klinik Hirslanden, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland; University of Berne, 3000, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Frank Zimmermann
- Clinic of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital of Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland
| | - Sherko Kuemmel
- Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Germany
| | - Mahmoud El-Tamer
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Marie Jeanne Vrancken Peeters
- Department of Surgical Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek & Amsterdam University Medical Center, Netherlands
| | - Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Radiation Therapy Unit, Sheba Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Michael Gnant
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Netwerk and University of Antwerp, Wilrijk-Antwerpen, Belgium
| | - Jana de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Thiruchelvam PTR, Leff DR, Godden AR, Cleator S, Wood SH, Kirby AM, Jallali N, Somaiah N, Hunter JE, Henry FP, Micha A, O'Connell RL, Mohammed K, Patani N, Tan MLH, Gujral D, Ross G, James SE, Khan AA, Rusby JE, Hadjiminas DJ, MacNeill FA. Primary radiotherapy and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction for patients with breast cancer (PRADA): a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:682-690. [PMID: 35397804 PMCID: PMC9630150 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00145-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2021] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy. METHODS We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daniel R Leff
- Department of Breast Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; BioSurgery and Surgical Technology, Department of Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Amy R Godden
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Susan Cleator
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Simon H Wood
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Navid Jallali
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Judith E Hunter
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Francis P Henry
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Aikaterini Micha
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rachel L O'Connell
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Neill Patani
- Department of Breast Surgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Melissa L H Tan
- Department of Breast Surgery, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Dorothy Gujral
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Stuart E James
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Aadil A Khan
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jennifer E Rusby
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Fiona A MacNeill
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|