1
|
He L, Lv Y, Song Y, Zhang B. The prognosis comparison of different molecular subtypes of breast tumors after radiotherapy and the intrinsic reasons for their distinct radiosensitivity. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11:5765-5775. [PMID: 31303789 PMCID: PMC6612049 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s213663] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2019] [Accepted: 05/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy can increase the cell cycle arrest that promotes apoptosis, reduces the risk of tumor recurrence and has become an irreplaceable component of systematic treatment for patients with breast cancer. Substantial advances in precise radiotherapy unequivocally indicate that the benefits of radiotherapy vary depending on intrinsic subtypes of the disease; luminal A breast cancer has the highest benefit whereas human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) are affected to a lesser extent irrespective of the selection of radiotherapy strategies, such as conventional whole-breast irradiation (CWBI), accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI), and hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HWBI). The benefit disparity correlates with the differential invasiveness, malignance, and radiosensitivity of the subtypes. A combination of a number of molecular mechanisms leads to the strong radioresistant profile of HER2-positive breast cancer, and sensitization to irradiation can be induced by multiple drugs or compounds in luminal disease and TNBC. In this review, we aimed to summarize the prognostic differences between various subtypes of breast tumors after CWBI, APBI, and HWBI, the potential reasons for drug-enhanced radiosensitivity in luminal breast tumors and TNBC, and the robust radioresistance of HER2-positive cancer. ![]()
Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use: https://youtu.be/ugTrSMuQVI8
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lin He
- Breast Center B Ward, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Yang Lv
- Department of Oncology, The PLA Navy Anqing Hospital, Anqing, Anhui Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Yuhua Song
- Breast Center B Ward, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Biyuan Zhang
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Guidolin K, Yaremko B, Lynn K, Gaede S, Kornecki A, Muscedere G, BenNachum I, Shmuilovich O, Mouawad M, Yu E, Sexton T, Gelman N, Moiseenko V, Brackstone M, Lock M. Stereotactic image-guided neoadjuvant ablative single-dose radiation, then lumpectomy, for early breast cancer: the SIGNAL prospective single-arm trial of single-dose radiation therapy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 26:e334-e340. [PMID: 31285677 DOI: 10.3747/co.26.4479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Background and Purpose Adjuvant whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery, typically delivered over several weeks, is the traditional standard of care for low-risk breast cancer. More recently, hypofractionated, partial-breast irradiation has increasingly become established. Neoadjuvant single-fraction radiotherapy (rt) is an uncommon approach wherein the unresected lesion is irradiated preoperatively in a single fraction. We developed the signal (Stereotactic Image-Guided Neoadjuvant Ablative Radiation Then Lumpectomy) trial, a prospective single-arm trial to test our hypothesis that, for low-risk carcinoma of the breast, the preoperative single-fraction approach would be feasible and safe. Methods Patients presenting with early-stage (T < 3 cm), estrogen-positive, clinically node-negative invasive carcinoma of the breast with tumours at least 2 cm away from skin and chest wall were enrolled. All patients received prone breast magnetic resonance imaging (mri) and prone computed tomography simulation. Treatable patients received a single 21 Gy fraction of external-beam rt (as volumetric-modulated arc therapy) to the primary lesion in the breast, followed by definitive surgery 1 week later. The primary endpoints at 3 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year were toxicity and cosmesis (that is, safety) and feasibility (defined as the proportion of mri-appropriate patients receiving rt). Results Of 52 patients accrued, 27 were successfully treated. The initial dosimetric constraints resulted in a feasibility failure, because only 57% of eligible patients were successfully treated. Revised dosimetric constraints were developed, after which 100% of patients meeting mri criteria were treated according to protocol. At 3 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after the operation, toxicity, patient- and physician-rated cosmesis, and quality of life were not significantly different from baseline. Conclusions The signal trial presents a feasible method of implementing single-dose preoperative rt in early-stage breast cancer. This pilot study did not identify any significant toxicity and demonstrated excellent cosmetic and quality-of-life outcomes. Future randomized multi-arm studies are required to corroborate these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Guidolin
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
| | - B Yaremko
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON
| | - K Lynn
- London Tumour Biobank, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON
| | - S Gaede
- Medical Physics, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON
| | - A Kornecki
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON
| | - G Muscedere
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON
| | - I BenNachum
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON
| | - O Shmuilovich
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON
| | - M Mouawad
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON
| | - E Yu
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.,Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON
| | - T Sexton
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.,Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON.,London Tumour Biobank, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON.,Medical Physics, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON.,Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, U.S.A.,Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON
| | - N Gelman
- Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, ON
| | - V Moiseenko
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, U.S.A
| | - M Brackstone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON.,Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON
| | - M Lock
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.,Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Palumbo I, Mariucci C, Falcinelli L, Perrucci E, Lancellotta V, Podlesko AM, Marcantonini M, Saldi S, Bini V, Aristei C. Hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with or without hypofractionated boost in early stage breast cancer patients: a mono-institutional analysis of skin and subcutaneous toxicity. Breast Cancer 2018; 26:290-304. [PMID: 30341747 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-018-0923-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2018] [Accepted: 10/10/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Our study evaluated skin and subcutaneous toxicity analyzing its correlation with patient- and treatment-related factors in a large mono-institutional series of women with early stage breast cancer treated with adjuvant hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) with or without a sequential hypofractionated boost (HB). METHODS Two hundred and nineteen patients, median age 62 years, received adjuvant hypofractionated WBRT in 16 fractions to a total dose of 42.4 Gy. Patients with negative prognostic factors received a HB of 2.65 Gy for 4 or 5 (patients with focal positive surgical margins) fractions. Systemic adjuvant treatments were hormonal therapy (HT) and/or chemotherapy (CHT) and/or Trastuzumab. Toxicities were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE 4.03) scale at 5th, 10th, 16th, 20th day from the start of radiotherapy (RT) and 1, 6 and 12 months after the end of RT. Univariate and multivariate analysis estimated toxicity predictive factors. RESULTS No case of treatment interruption and no acute or late G3 toxicities occurred. In the univariate analysis HB administration resulted a risk factor for acute toxicity, while CHT administration and number of excised lymph nodes ≥ 10 resulted a risk factor for late toxicity. In the multivariate analysis none of the evaluated factors emerged a risk factor for acute and/or late toxicity. CONCLUSIONS Our results confirmed that hypofractionated WBRT even followed by a HB resulted safe and well tolerated. Longer follow-up is warranted to estimate late toxicity and treatment outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabella Palumbo
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, 06156, Perugia, Italy.
| | | | | | | | - Valentina Lancellotta
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, 06156, Perugia, Italy
| | | | | | - Simonetta Saldi
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Vittorio Bini
- Internal Medicine Endocrine and Metabolic Science Section, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, 06156, Perugia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|