Accelerated partial breast irradiation: initial experience with the Intrabeam System

Commissioning, clinical implementation, and performance of the Mobetron 2000 for intraoperative radiation therapy

The Mobetron is a mobile electron accelerator designed to deliver therapeutic radiation dose intraoperatively while diseased tissue is exposed. Experience with the Mobetron 1000 has been reported extensively. However, since the time of those publications a new model, the Mobetron 2000, has become commercially available. Experience commissioning this new model and 3 years of data from historical use are reported here. Descriptions of differences between the models are emphasized, both in physical form and in dosimetric characteristics. Results from commissioning measurements including output factors, air gap factors, percent depth doses (PDDs), and 2D dose profiles are reported. Output factors are found to have changed considerably in the new model, with factors as high as 1.7 being measured. An example lookup table of appropriate accessory/energy combinations for a given target dimension is presented, and the method used to generate it described. Results from 3 years of daily QA measurements are outlined. Finally, practical considerations garnered from 3 years of use are presented.

The INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Initial treatment for early breast cancer is usually either breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. After BCS, whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A potential alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy delivered by the INTRABEAM(®) Photon Radiotherapy System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to the tissue adjacent to the resection cavity at the time of surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer during surgical removal of the tumour.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to March 2014 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and the manufacturer's submission were also searched. The advisory group was contacted to identify additional evidence.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Clinical effectiveness studies were included if they were carried out in patients with early operable breast cancer. The intervention was the INTRABEAM system, which was compared with WB-EBRT, and study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled clinical trials could be considered if data from available RCTs were incomplete (e.g. absence of data on outcomes of interest). A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM compared with WB-EBRT for early operable breast cancer.

RESULTS

One non-inferiority RCT, TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A), met the inclusion criteria for the review. The review found that local recurrence was slightly higher following INTRABEAM than WB-EBRT, but the difference did not exceed the 2.5% non-inferiority margin providing INTRABEAM was given at the same time as BCS. Overall survival was similar with both treatments. Statistically significant differences in complications were found for the occurrence of wound seroma requiring more than three aspirations (more frequent in the INTRABEAM group) and for a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score of grade 3 or 4 (less frequent in the INTRABEAM group). Cost-effectiveness base-case analysis indicates that INTRABEAM is less expensive but also less effective than WB-EBRT because it is associated with lower total costs but fewer total quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, sensitivity analyses identified four model parameters that can cause a switch in the treatment option that is considered cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The base-case result from the model is subject to uncertainty because the disease progression parameters are largely drawn from the single available RCT. The RCT median follow-up of 2 years 5 months may be inadequate, particularly as the number of participants with local recurrence is low. The model is particularly sensitive to this parameter.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

A significant investment in INTRABEAM equipment and staff training (clinical and non-clinical) would be required to make this technology available across the NHS. Longer-term follow-up data from the TARGIT-A trial and analysis of registry data are required as results are currently based on a small number of events and economic modelling results are uncertain.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006720.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Note that the economic model associated with this document is protected by intellectual property rights, which are owned by the University of Southampton. Anyone wishing to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, dismantle or create derivative work based on the economic model must first seek the agreement of the property owners.

TARGIT-R (Retrospective): North American Experience with Intraoperative Radiation Using Low-Kilovoltage X-Rays for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-dose intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is an emerging treatment for women with early stage breast cancer. The objective of this study was to define the frequency of IORT use, patient selection, and outcomes of patients treated in North America.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective registry was created, and 19 institutions using low-kilovoltage IORT for the treatment of breast cancer entered data on patients treated at their institution before July 31, 2013. Patient selection, IORT treatment details, complications, and recurrences were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2007 to July 31, 2013, a total of 935 women were identified and treated with lumpectomy and IORT. A total of 822 patients had at least 6 months' follow-up documented and were included in the analysis. The number of IORT cases performed increased significantly over time (p < 0.001). The median patient age was 66.8 years. Most patients had disease that was <2 cm in size (90 %) and was estrogen positive (91 %); most patients had invasive ductal cancer (68 %). Of those who had a sentinel lymph node procedure performed, 89 % had negative sentinel lymph nodes. The types of IORT performed were primary IORT in 79 %, secondary IORT in 7 %, or planned boost in 14 %. Complications were low. At a median follow-up of 23.3 months, crude in-breast recurrence was 2.3 % for all patients treated.

CONCLUSIONS

IORT use for the treatment of breast cancer is significantly increasing in North America, and physicians are selecting low-risk patients for this treatment option. Low complication and local recurrence rates support IORT as a treatment option for selected women with early stage breast cancer.

Risk factors for seroma evacuation in breast cancer patients treated with intraoperative radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Novel techniques in oncology provide new treatment opportunities but also introduce different patterns of side effects. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) allows a shortened overall treatment time for early breast cancer either combined with whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), or alone. Although the early side effects of IORT are well known, data on clinically important late side effects, which require medical intervention, are scarce.

AIM

In this study, we analyze risk factors for seroma evacuation more than 6 months after IORT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 120 patients with a mean follow-up of 27.8 months (range: 7-52 months). Fifty-one patients received IORT only and 69 were additionally treated with WBRT.

RESULTS

Seroma evacuation was performed 6-38 months after IORT. Two (3.9%) events were observed in the IORT group and 14 (20%) in the IORT + WBRT group. Univariate (Kaplan-Meier) analysis showed that addition of WBRT to IORT increased the risk of seroma evacuation [hazard ratio = 5.5, 95% confidence interval: 2.0-14.7, P = 0.011]. In a multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards regression), WBRT and axillary lymph node dissection were significant risk factors for seroma evacuation (model P value = 0.0025).

CONCLUSIONS

WBRT applied after IORT is associated with increased risk of seroma evacuation, which might be considered as a late side effect.

Dosimetric Comparison Between 3-Dimensional Conformal and Robotic SBRT Treatment Plans for Accelerated Partial Breast Radiotherapy

Accelerated partial breast irradiation is an attractive alternative to conventional whole breast radiotherapy for selected patients. Recently, CyberKnife has emerged as a possible alternative to conventional techniques for accelerated partial breast irradiation. In this retrospective study, we present a dosimetric comparison between 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy plans and CyberKnife plans using circular (Iris) and multi-leaf collimators. Nine patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery followed by whole breast radiation were included in this retrospective study. The CyberKnife planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the lumpectomy cavity + 10 mm + 2 mm with prescription dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions. Two sets of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy plans were created, one used the same definitions as described for CyberKnife and the second used the RTOG-0413 definition of the PTV: lumpectomy cavity + 15 mm + 10 mm with prescription dose of 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions. Using both PTV definitions allowed us to compare the dose delivery capabilities of each technology and to evaluate the advantage of CyberKnife tracking. For the dosimetric comparison using the same PTV margins, CyberKnife and 3-dimensional plans resulted in similar tumor coverage and dose to critical structures, with the exception of the lung V5%, which was significantly smaller for 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, 6.2% when compared to 39.4% for CyberKnife-Iris and 17.9% for CyberKnife-multi-leaf collimator. When the inability of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to track motion is considered, the result increased to 25.6%. Both CyberKnife-Iris and CyberKnife-multi-leaf collimator plans demonstrated significantly lower average ipsilateral breast V50% (25.5% and 24.2%, respectively) than 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (56.2%). The CyberKnife plans were more conformal but less homogeneous than the 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy plans. Approximately 50% shorter treatment times and 50% lower number of delivered monitor units (MU) were achievable with CyberKnife-multi-leaf collimator than with CyberKnife-Iris. The CyberKnife-multi-leaf collimator treatment times were comparable to 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, however, the number of MU delivered was approximately 2.5 times larger. The suitability of 10 + 2 mm margins warrants further investigation.

Dosimetric characterization of INTRABEAM® miniature accelerator flat and surface applicators for dermatologic applications

PURPOSE

This study aims at characterizing the dosimetric behavior of an INTRABEAM(®) miniature accelerator equipped with flat and surface applicators, converting the spherical dose distribution into a flat one.

METHODS

Dosimetric characterization was carried out in two steps. Firstly characterization was made in standard conditions for dermatologic applications, which is with the applicator directly on contact with the skin. Secondly, characterization was made in more clinical conditions, such as obliquities and heterogeneities.

RESULTS

Behaviors of flat and surface applicators are different. Dose distribution for surface applicators is uniform at surface, whereas for flat applicator the maximum homogeneity is shown at a particular depth in water. Some results are different from previously published studies due to differences in the X-ray source design. The study showed that in the absence of a perfect contact between the applicator and the skin of the patient, there is a dose distribution spread on the edge of the irradiation field where the contact is not made. Dose loss due to lack of backscatter radiations is significant. By contrast, influence of a denser material behind the measurement point has no significant influence on the dose at this point. Thickness of tissue treated with flat and surface applicators is only a few millimeters, depending on the applicator's size, making these applicators ideal for superficial lesions, compared to high energy electrons and iridium brachytherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The INTRABEAM(®) miniature accelerator equipped with surface applicators is a reliable way of treating superficial cutaneous malignancies.

Intraoperative radiation therapy techniques and options for breast cancer

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) applied to peri-tumoral tissue can play a significant role in preventing breast cancer recurrence. Approximately 80-100% of breast cancer recurrences occur at the tumor bed, thus restricting radiation to the postoperative bed may be reasonable in a select group of patients. IORT can be delivered as a boost in addition to standard external beam radiotherapy, or as a primary form of treatment. IORT can be administered via electrons generated by a linear accelerator or by a system using low-energy x-rays. Potential advantages of IORT include improved cosmesis, shorter overall treatment time, radiobiological advantages, and ability to define the tumor bed by direct visualization during surgery assuring accurate delivery of radiotherapy. IORT alone can be considered for appropriate patients with early breast cancer who may not require whole-breast radiation therapy. This review discusses patient criteria and benefits, IORT's roots, radiobiological considerations, treatment options, and device categories.

Intraoperative Period and Breast Cancer: Review

Intraoperative radiation therapy in breast cancer (IORT) delivers a concentrated dose of radiation therapy to a tumor bed during surgery. IORT offers some of the following advantages with typically fewer complications like; maximum effect, sparing healthy tissues and organs, to help the patients finish treatment and get back to their normal activities. The goal of IORT is to improve local tumor control and survival rates for patients with breast cancer. IORT can both be performed with electron beams (ELIOT) and X-rays. Two main randomised trials testing intraoperative partial breast radiotherapy are TARGIT trial and the ELIOT (intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons) trial, but the techniques are fundamentally different. Whereas TARGIT delivers radiation from within the undisturbed tumour bed, for ELIOT, the mammary gland is mobilised, a prepectoral lead shield is inserted, the edges of the tumour bed are apposed, and radiation is delivered from without.

The importance of the implant quality in APBI - Gliwice experience. Dosimetric evaluation

This study includes four years of our clinical trials to improve implant quality in multicatheter accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). The progress in dosimetric and volumetric parameters of the treatment plans was evaluated. One hundred and ninety-one women, for whom treatment plans were made based on three dimensional imaging, were selected for the study. To evaluate progress made in our APBI procedure, following parameters and indices were taken into account: percentage of the target volume receiving the reference dose (PTV_ref), minimum dose in the target volume expressed as a percentage of reference dose (PTV_min), dose homogeneity index (DHI), and conformity index (COIN). Additionally, the plan quality index was calculated for every group as the sum of mean values of four evaluated parameters. PTV_ref have increased from the mean value of 83.4% at the beginning to recent 94.8%. The maximum value equals to 95.4%. The same trend can be observed with PTV_min value, which has been improved from 51.7% to 70.1%, maximally. DHI and COIN mean values present similar progress. DHI value increased from 0.53 level to 0.68, and COIN from 0.58 in 2009 to 0.74. Plan quality index has increased from 2.46 in 2009 to 3.06, recently. The implant quality is crucial for the accurate dose distribution. This paper shows the progress that was made in APBI procedure to improve implant quality. Nowadays, our implant technique is based on three-dimensional CT imaging results in acceptable dose distributions.

The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial breast irradiation

PURPOSE

To develop clinical guidelines for the quality practice of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) as part of breast-conserving therapy for women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in breast cancer and breast brachytherapy in particular devised updated guidelines for appropriate patient evaluation and selection based on an extensive literature search and clinical experience.

RESULTS

Increasing numbers of randomized and single and multi-institution series have been published documenting the efficacy of various APBI modalities. With more than 10-year followup, multiple series have documented excellent clinical outcomes with interstitial APBI. Patient selection for APBI should be based on a review of clinical and pathologic factors by the clinician with particular attention paid to age (≥50 years old), tumor size (≤3cm), histology (all invasive subtypes and ductal carcinoma in situ), surgical margins (negative), lymphovascular space invasion (not present), and nodal status (negative). Consistent dosimetric guidelines should be used to improve target coverage and limit potential for toxicity following treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines have been created to provide clinicians with appropriate patient selection criteria to allow clinicians to use APBI in a manner that will optimize clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. These guidelines will continue to be evaluated and revised as future publications further stratify optimal patient selection.

Mammographic findings after intraoperative radiotherapy of the breast

Intraoperative Radiotherapy (IORT) is a form of accelerated partial breast radiation that has been shown to be equivalent to conventional whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of local cancer control. However, questions have been raised about the potential of f IORT to produce breast parenchymal changes that could interfere with mammographic surveillance of cancer recurrence. The purpose of this study was to identify, quantify, and compare the mammographic findings of patients who received IORT and EBRT in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial of women with early stage invasive breast cancer undergoing breast conserving therapy between July 2005 and December 2009. Treatment groups were compared with regard to the 1, 2 and 4-year incidence of 6 post-operative mammographic findings: architectural distortion, skin thickening, skin retraction, calcifications, fat necrosis, and mass density. Blinded review of 90 sets of mammograms of 15 IORT and 16 EBRT patients demonstrated a higher incidence of fat necrosis among IORT recipients at years 1, 2, and 4. However, none of the subjects were judged to have suspicious mammogram findings and fat necrosis did not interfere with mammographic interpretation.

Radiobiological rationale and clinical implications of hypofractionated radiation therapy

Recent clinical trials of hypofractionated radiation treatment have provided critical insights into the safety and efficacy of hypofractionation. However, there remains much controversy in the field, both at the level of clinical practice and in our understanding of the underlying radiobiological mechanisms. In this article, we review the clinical literature on hypofractionated radiation treatment for breast, prostate, and other malignancies. We highlight several ongoing clinical trials that compare outcomes of a hypofractionated approach versus those obtained with a conventional approach. Lastly, we outline some of the preclinical and clinical evidence that argue in favor of differential radiobiological mechanisms underlying hypofractionated radiation treatment. Emerging data from the ongoing studies will help to better define and guide the rational use of hypofractionation in future years.