An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

Intraoperative radiotherapy: An alternative to whole-breast external beam radiotherapy in the management of highly selective breast cancer: A SEER database analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to verify if intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) can achieve the same survival outcome as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and to explore the suitable candidates that can safely receive IORT after BCS.

METHODS

Eligible post-BCS patients who received IORT or EBRT were included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2018. Risk factors that affected 5-year overall survival (OS) or breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) were identified by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Clinical characteristics, OS, and BCSS were comparatively analyzed between the two treatment modalities.

RESULTS

The survival analysis after propensity score matching confirmed that patients who received IORT (n = 2200) had a better 5-year OS than those who received EBRT (n = 2200) (p = 0.015). However, the two groups did not differ significantly in 5-year BCSS (p = 0.381). This feature persisted even after multivariate analyses that took into account numerous clinical characteristics. Although there was no significant difference in BCSS between different subgroups of patients treated with IORT or EBRT, patients over 55 years of age, with T1, N0, non-triple negative breast cancers, hormone receptor-positive, and histologic grade II showed a better OS after receiving IORT.

CONCLUSION

In low-risk, early-stage breast cancer, IORT was not inferior to EBRT considering 5-year BCSS and OS. Considering the equivalent clinical outcome but less radiotoxicity, IORT might be a reasonable alternative to EBRT in highly selective patients undergoing BCS.

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

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL/METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparative efficacy of intraoperative radiotherapy and external boost irradiation in early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

External boost radiotherapy (EBRT) and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) are shown to be effective in patients with early-stage breast cancer. However, the difference between IORT and EBRT for patients' prognosis remains to be elucidated. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate differences in local recurrence (LR), distant metastases, disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) between these two therapies. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, from inception to Jan 10th, 2022. We used The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies, and the STATA15.0 tool was used for the meta-analyses. Eight studies were ultimately included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that there was an inconsistent finding in the long-term risk of LR between the two radiotherapies, and there was no significant difference in short-term risk of LR, the metastasis rate, DFS, and OS IORT would be more convenient, less time-consuming, less costly, and more effective at reducing side effects and toxicity. However, these benefits must be balanced against the potential for increased risk of LR in the long term.

Partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI).

METHODS

A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI.

CONCLUSIONS

Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.

Intraoperative electron radiotherapy in early invasive ductal breast cancer: 6-year median follow-up results of a prospective monocentric registry

Background

Intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT) can be used to treat early breast cancer during the conservative surgery thus enabling shorter overall treatment times and reduced irradiation of organs at risk. We report on our first 996 patients enrolled prospectively in a registry trial.

Methods

At Jules Bordet Institute, from February 2010 onwards, patients underwent partial IOERT of the breast. Women with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, aged 40 years or older, with a clinical tumour size ≤ 20 mm and tumour-free sentinel lymph node (on frozen section and immunohistochemical analysis). A 21 Gy dose was prescribed on the 90% isodose line in the tumour bed with the energy of 6 to 12 MeV (Mobetron®-IntraOp Medical).

Results

Thirty-seven ipsilateral tumour relapses occurred. Sixteen of those were in the same breast quadrant. Sixty patients died, and among those, 12 deaths were due to breast cancer. With 71.9 months of median follow-up, the 5-year Kaplan–Meier estimate of local recurrence was 2.7%.

Conclusions

The rate of breast cancer local recurrence after IOERT is low and comparable to published results for IORT and APBI. IOERT is highly operator-dependent, and appropriate applicator sizing according to tumour size is critical. When used in a selected patient population, IOERT achieves a good balance between tumour control and late radiotherapy-mediated toxicity morbidity and mortality thanks to insignificant irradiation of organs at risk.

Intraoperative radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy for early stage low-risk breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery: a propensity score matching study based on the SEER database

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) and no radiotherapy in early stage low-risk breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

METHODS

According to the criteria recommended by ASTRO for patients eligible for IORT, we retrospectively selected women with early stage low-risk breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery from 2010 to 2019 from the SEER database. Propensity score matching was used to balance the differences in baseline characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of patients, and the log-rank test was used to compare the differences.

RESULTS

A total of 20,245 patients were included in the analysis, including 1738 in the IORT group and 18,507 in the no radiotherapy group, with a median follow-up of 41 months. Before matching, the 5-year OS rates of the IORT group and the no radiotherapy group were 95.5% and 85.7% (p < 0.001), respectively, and the 5-year BCSS rates of the two groups were 99.6% and 98.3% (p < 0.001), respectively. After matching, the 5-year OS rates were 95.6% and 90.3% (p < 0.001) in the IORT group and the no radiotherapy group, respectively, and the 5-year BCSS rates were 99.5% and 99.1% (p = 0.028), respectively. Cox multivariate analysis of the original data showed that radiotherapy was an independent prognostic factor for both OS and BCSS (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients aged 50 years or older with early stage low-risk breast cancer, IORT may be a better option, with improved BCSS compared to the elimination of radiotherapy. The study could not draw conclusions on OS, because underlying diseases may be unevenly distributed between the two groups.

Global adoption of single-shot targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) for breast cancer—better for patients, better for healthcare systems

Micro abstract

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) is delivered immediately after lumpectomy for breast cancer. We estimated its impact. At least 44,752 patients with breast cancer were treated with TARGIT-IORT in 260 centres in 35 countries, saving &gt;20 million miles of travel and preventing ~2,000 non–breast cancer deaths. The TARGIT-IORT website (https://targit.org.uk/travel) provides maps and tools to find the nearest centre offering TARGIT-IORT and travel savings.

Background

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) delivers radiotherapy targeted to the fresh tumour bed exposed immediately after lumpectomy for breast cancer. TARGIT-A trial found TARGIT-IORT to be as effective as whole-breast radiotherapy, with significantly fewer deaths from non–breast cancer causes. This paper documents its worldwide impact and provides interactive tools for clinicians and patients.

Method

Centres using TARGIT-IORT provided the date of the first case and the total number of patients. We plotted these data on a customised Google Map. An interactive web-based tool provided directions to the closest centre. Using the data from the TARGIT-A trial, we estimated the total savings in travel miles, carbon footprint, and the number of non–breast cancer deaths that might be prevented.

Results

Data from 242 (93%) of the 260 centres treating patients from 35 countries were available. From the first patient treated in 1998 to early 2020, at least 44,752 women with breast cancer have been treated with TARGIT-IORT. The TARGIT-IORT website (https://targit.org.uk/travel) displays the Google Map of centres with number of cases and an interactive tool for patients to find the nearest centre offering TARGIT-IORT and their travel savings. Scaling up to the already treated patients, &gt;20 million miles of travel would have been saved and about 2,000 deaths prevented.

Conclusion

One can ascertain the number of patients treated with a novel treatment. These data show how widely TARGIT-IORT has now been adopted and gives an indication of its beneficial worldwide impact on a large number of women with breast cancer.

Prognosis comparison between intraoperative radiotherapy and whole-breast external beam radiotherapy for T1–2 stage breast cancer without lymph node metastasis treated with breast-conserving surgery: A case–control study after propensity score matching

Background

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), an adjuvant to breast-conserving surgery (BCS), requires a long treatment period, is costly, and is associated with numerous complications. Large sample studies with long follow-up periods are lacking regarding whether intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), an emerging radiotherapy modality, can replace EBRT for patients with T1–2 early stage breast cancer without lymph node metastasis treated with BCS.

Methods

We identified 270,842 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer from 2000 to 2018 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. A total of 10,992 patients were matched by propensity score matching (PSM). According to the radiotherapy method, the patients were divided into the IORT and EBRT groups. Overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) rates were analyzed and compared between the IORT and EBRT groups by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Bilateral P < 0.05 was considered to indicate significance.

Results

After PSM, the survival analysis showed no significant differences in OS or BCSS rates between the IORT and EBRT groups. In the subgroup analysis, the IORT population diagnosed from 2010 to 2013 (HRs = 0.675, 95% CI 0.467–0.976, P = 0.037) or with T2 stage (HRs = 0.449, 95% CI 0.261–0.772, P = 0.004) had better OS rates, but in the overall population, the OS and BCSS rates were better in patients with T1 stage than in patients with T2 stage (P < 0.0001), and the proportion of chemotherapy was significantly higher in T2 stage than in T1 stage. Patients who had EBRT with unknown estrogen receptor had better OS rates (HRs = 3.392, 95% CI 1.368–8.407, P = 0.008). In addition, the IORT group had better BCSS rates for married (HRs = 0.403, 95% CI 0.184–0.881, P = 0.023), grade III (HRs = 0.405, 95% CI 0.173–0.952, P = 0.038), and chemotherapy-receiving (HRs = 0.327, 95% CI 0.116–0.917, P = 0.034) patients with breast cancer compared to the EBRT group.

Conclusion

Intraoperative radiotherapy results of non-inferior OS and BCSS rates, compared to those of EBRT, in patients with early stage breast cancer without lymph node metastasis treated with BCS, and IORT may provide substantial benefits to patients as an effective alternative to standard treatment. This finding provides new insights into radiotherapy strategies for early stage breast cancer.

Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiotherapy (RT). Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane Review, we investigated the delivery of radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation (PBI)) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypofractionated WBRT after breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 August 2020, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and three trial databases. We searched for grey literature: OpenGrey (September 2020), reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and published abstracts, and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding, that evaluated conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus WBRT. Published and unpublished trials were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BH and ML) performed data extraction, used Cochrane's risk of bias tool and resolved any disagreements through discussion, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for main outcomes using GRADE. Main outcomes were local recurrence-free survival, cosmesis, overall survival, toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis), cause-specific survival, distant metastasis-free survival and subsequent mastectomy. We entered data into Review Manager 5 for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs that enrolled 15,187 women who had invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in-situ (6.3%) with T1-2N0-1M0 Grade I or II unifocal tumours (less than 2 cm or 3 cm or less) treated with breast-conserving therapy with negative margins. This is the second update of the review and includes two new studies and 4432 more participants. Local recurrence-free survival is probably slightly reduced (by 3/1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 0 fewer) with the use of PBI/APBI compared to WBRT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.42; 8 studies, 13,168 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Cosmesis (physician/nurse-reported) is probably worse (by 63/1000, 95% CI 35 more to 92 more) with the use of PBI/APBI (odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.87; 6 studies, 3652 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall survival is similar (0/1000 fewer, 95% CI 6 fewer to 6 more) with PBI/APBI and WBRT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12; 8 studies, 13,175 participants; high-certainty evidence). Late radiation toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis) is probably increased (by 14/1000 more, 95% CI 102 more to 188 more) with PBI/APBI (OR 5.07, 95% CI 3.81 to 6.74; 2 studies, 3011 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of PBI/APBI probably makes little difference (1/1000 less, 95% CI 6 fewer to 3 more) to cause-specific survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.36; 7 studies, 9865 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found the use of PBI/APBI compared with WBRT probably makes little or no difference (1/1000 fewer (95% CI 4 fewer to 6 more)) to distant metastasis-free survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; 7 studies, 11,033 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found the use of PBI/APBI in comparison with WBRT makes little or no difference (2/1000 fewer, 95% CI 20 fewer to 20 more) to mastectomy rates (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 3 studies, 3740 participants, high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It appeared that local recurrence-free survival is probably worse with PBI/APBI; however, the difference was small and nearly all women remain free of local recurrence. Overall survival is similar with PBI/APBI and WBRT, and we found little to no difference in other oncological outcomes. Some late effects (subcutaneous fibrosis) may be worse with PBI/APBI and its use is probably associated with worse cosmetic outcomes. The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT-A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses.

METHODS

In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0-N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT.

RESULTS

Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt . Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.88) P = 0.0091.

CONCLUSION

TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).

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

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Single-dose intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer: an innovative patient-centred treatment

In the randomised TARGIT-A trial, risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy was non-inferior to whole-breast external beam radiotherapy, for local recurrence. In the long-term, no difference was found in any breast cancer outcome, whereas there were fewer deaths from non-breast-cancer causes. TARGIT-IORT should be included in pre-operative consultations with eligible patients.

The Role of Intraoperative Radiation in Early-stage Breast Cancer

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is a specialized form of accelerated partial breast irradiation in which a single dose of radiation is delivered to the tumor bed at the time of breast conserving surgery. With completion of radiation to the tumor bed at the time of surgery, IORT promises improved patient convenience, compliance, and quality of life. In addition, with its potentially skin-sparing properties and ability to deliver a high biologically effective dose to the tumor bed while reducing dose to nontarget tissues, IORT results in different but overall less toxicities compared with other modalities of radiation for breast cancer. However, skepticism over the role of IORT in breast cancer exists, and the 2 randomized trials that have analyzed IORT as the definitive radiation component of breast conservation therapy have shown an increase in local recurrence rates with IORT compared with whole breast irradiation, but similar rates of overall survival. In this review, we discuss the practicalities of IORT, the prospective data supporting and negating the role of IORT in lieu of whole breast irradiation, and the toxicity after IORT in early-stage breast cancer. We also review the role of IORT as a radiation boost and specific strategies for successful implementation of IORT in breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: A systematic review

Background: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the recommended treatment for early breast cancer. After BCS. Whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A possible alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT). The objectives of this systematic review were to analyses the cost-effectiveness of IORT versus EBRT for early-stage breast cancer and to assess the reporting quality of the included studies to inform future studies.

Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in five main databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science) to identify original studies published to June 25, 2020. We included all full economic evaluation studies (cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA), Model-based or trial-based) that assessed and compared IORT and EBRT in patients with early operable breast cancer. Study outcomes included cost per life-years gained or cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained or in monetary units or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. This review has been conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Results: Of 1155 studies identified, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In four studies, IORT was associated with lower costs and higher effectiveness than EBRT. In three studies, the dominant option was EBRT. In these studies, IORT also had lower costs and lower effectiveness than EBRT. Existing evidence suggests that IORT can be a cost-effective alternative to early breast cancer treatment by reducing therapeutic costs. Variables of cost-effectiveness were treatment costs, health state utilities, local and distant recurrence rates, and the probabilities of metastasis after treatment, recurrent cancer and death for both IORT and EBRT. The reporting quality of the included studies was "high" in five, "medium quality" in one and "low" in two studies.

Conclusion: Current evidence is sparse, and the number of studies was small but this evidence proposes that IORT can be a potential cost-saving strategy to the health systems for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer if the technology was carried out routinely in eligible patients. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity of studies and possible publication bias.

First Intraoperative Radiation Therapy Center in Africa: First 2 Years in Operation, Including COVID-19 Experiences

PURPOSE

There is a shortage of radiation therapy service centers in low- to middle-income countries. TARGIT–intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) may offer a viable alternative to improve radiation treatment efficiency and alleviate hospital patient loads. The Breast Care Unit in Johannesburg became the first facility in Africa to offer TARGIT-IORT, and the purpose of this study was to present a retrospective review of patients receiving IORT at this center between November 2017 and May 2020.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patient selection criteria were based mainly on the latest American Society of Radiation Oncology guidelines. Selection criteria included early-stage breast carcinoma (luminal A) and luminal B with negative upfront sentinel lymph node biopsy that negated external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Patient characteristics, reasons for choosing IORT, histology, and use of oncoplastic surgery that resulted in complications were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred seven patients successfully received IORT/TARGIT-IORT. Mean age was 60.8 years (standard deviation, 9.3 years). A total of 73.8% of patients presented with luminal A, 15.0% with luminal B, and 5.6% with triple-negative cancer. One patient who presented with locally advanced breast cancer (T4N2) opted for IORT as a boost in addition to planned EBRT. Eighty-seven patients underwent wide local excision (WLE) with mastopexy, and 12 underwent WLE with parenchymal. Primary reasons for selecting IORT/TARGIT-IORT were distance from the hospital (43.9%), choice (40.2%), and age (10.3%).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study of IORT/TARGIT-IORT performed in Africa confirms its viability, with low complication rates and no detrimental effects with breast conservation, resulting in positive acceptance and the potential to reduce Oncology Center patient loads. Limitations of the study include the fact that only short-term data on local recurrence were available. Health and socioeconomic value models must still be addressed in the African setting.

Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy Is Non-inferior to Conventional External Beam Radiotherapy in Chinese Patients With Breast Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) vs. conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in Chinese patients with breast cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed breast cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) at our hospital between April 2009 and October 2017. Patients were divided into TARGIT group and EBRT group according to different radiotherapy methods. TARGIT was performed with low-energy X-rays emitted by the Intrabeam system to deliver a single dose of 20 Gy to the applicator surface. Propensity score matching was performed at 1:1. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the locoregional recurrence (LR), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) of the two groups, and the log-rank test was run to analyse between-group difference before and after matching. Results: A total of 281 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 43 months. Of them, 82 were included in the TARGIT group and 199 in the EBRT group. Using the risk-adapted approach, 6.1% of patients received supplemental EBRT in the TARGIT group. The 5-year LR rate was 3.2% in the TARGIT group and 3.1% in the EBRT group (P = 0.694), the 5-year DMFS rates were 100 and 96.7%, respectively (P = 0.157); the 5-year DFS rates were 96.8 and 94.2% (P = 0.604); and the 5-year OS rates were 97.6 and 97.8% (P = 0.862). After matching which eliminated interference from imbalanced baseline factors, 128 matched patients were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. The 5-year LR rate was 2.3% in the TARGIT group and 1.6% in the EBRT group; the 5-year DMFS rates were 100 and 98.4%, respectively; the 5-year DFS rates were 97.7 and 98.4%; and the 5-year OS rates were 98.4 and 98.4% (P = 0.659, 0.313, 0.659, 0.987). There was no significant difference in efficacy between TARGIT group and EBRT group. Conclusion: TARGIT and EBRT have similar 5-year outcomes in selected Chinese breast cancer patients undergoing BCS, and it can be used as an effective alternative to standard therapy, with substantial benefits to patients. The results need to be further confirmed by extending the follow-up time.

Impact of intraoperative radiotherapy on the perioperative period of patients after breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effect of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in the perioperative period of patients after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

METHODS

The clinical data of 100 patients with early breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by treatment with IORT using the Intrabeam system (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Oberkochen, Germany) (BCS + IORT group, n=100) between June 2016 and December 2019 were analyzed and compared with the data of 60 matched patients who only underwent breast-conserving therapy over the same period (BCS group, n=60). The surgical settings and postoperative acute complications between the groups were assessed.

RESULTS

There was no significant statistical difference between the groups in terms of age, tumor size, grading, lymph node status, hormone receptor status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status (P>0.05). The BCS + IORT group had a significantly longer surgery duration (P<0.05), but there was no significant statistical difference in terms of intraoperative blood loss, amount of bleeding, drainage tube removal time, postoperative length of hospitalization, incision suture removal time, or incidence of postoperative complications (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

IORT using the Intrabeam system safely delivers radiation therapy, is well-tolerated, has acceptable acute toxicity, and does not significant increase the risk of surgery or the incidence of perioperative complications.

DEGRO practical guideline for partial-breast irradiation

PURPOSE

This consensus statement from the Breast Cancer Working Group of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aims to define practical guidelines for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI).

METHODS

Recent recommendations for relevant aspects of APBI were summarized and a panel of experts reviewed all the relevant literature. Panel members of the DEGRO experts participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for implementing APBI in clinical routine, focusing on patient selection, target definition, and treatment technique.

RESULTS

Appropriate patient selection, target definition for different APBI techniques, and basic rules for appropriate APBI techniques for clinical routine outside of clinical trials are described. Detailed recommendations for APBI in daily practice, including dose constraints, are given.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines are mandatory to assure optimal results of APBI using different techniques.

Long term survival and local control outcomes from single dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer.

DESIGN

Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

INTERVENTIONS

Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 v 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 v 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005).

CONCLUSION

For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.

Effect of Delayed Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy vs Whole-Breast Radiotherapy on Local Recurrence and Survival: Long-term Results From the TARGIT-A Randomized Clinical Trial in Early Breast Cancer

Importance

Conventional adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer given daily for several weeks is onerous and expensive. Some patients may be obliged to choose a mastectomy instead, and some may forgo radiotherapy altogether. We proposed a clinical trial to test whether radiotherapy could be safely limited to the tumor bed.

Objective

To determine whether delayed second-procedure targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) is noninferior to whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of local control.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prospective, randomized (1:1 ratio) noninferiority trial, 1153 patients aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma smaller than 3.5 cm treated with breast conservation were enrolled from 28 centers in 9 countries. Data were locked in on July 3, 2019.

Interventions

The TARGIT-A trial was started in March 2000; patients were randomized after needle biopsy to receive TARGIT-IORT immediately after lumpectomy under the same anesthetic vs EBRT and results have been shown to be noninferior. A parallel study, described in this article, was initiated in 2004; patients who had their cancer excised were randomly allocated using separate randomization tables to receive EBRT or delayed TARGIT-IORT given as a second procedure by reopening the lumpectomy wound.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A noninferiority margin for local recurrence rate of 2.5% at 5 years, and long-term survival outcomes.

Results

Overall, 581 women (mean [SD] age, 63 [7] years) were randomized to delayed TARGIT-IORT and 572 patients (mean [SD] age, 63 [8] years) were randomized to EBRT. Sixty patients (5%) had tumors larger than 2 cm, or had positive nodes and only 32 (2.7%) were younger than 50 years. Delayed TARGIT-IORT was not noninferior to EBRT. The local recurrence rates at 5-year complete follow-up were: delayed TARGIT-IORT vs EBRT (23/581 [3.96%] vs 6/572 [1.05%], respectively; difference, 2.91%; upper 90% CI, 4.4%). With long-term follow-up (median [IQR], 9.0 [7.5-10.5] years), there was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.003; P = .052), mastectomy-free survival (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65-1.18; P = .38), distant disease-free survival (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.39; P = .98), or overall survival (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.35; P = .80).

Conclusions and Relevance

These long-term data show that despite an increase in the number of local recurrences with delayed TARGIT-IORT, there was no statistically significant decrease in mastectomy-free survival, distant disease-free survival, or overall survival.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN34086741, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00983684.

Safety and efficacy of INTRABEAM intraoperative radiotherapy for invasive thymoma

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been used to treat different residual solid tumors after tumor removal and has shown many advantages over other treatment methods. However, the use of IORT for invasive thymoma has not been reported. Therefore, in this study, we tried to determine the safety and efficacy of INTRABEAM IORT for the treatment of invasive thymoma.Among the patients admitted to our hospital from September to December 2016 who were diagnosed with invasive thymoma, 14 were selected as study subjects. With medical histories taken beforehand, 8 of these patients were diagnosed with Masaoka stage IIA and 6 with Masaoka stage IIB; furthermore, 5 of the patients were diagnosed with myasthenia gravis (MG). INTRABEAM radiation (8-10 Gy, low energy) was delivered to the postoperative tumor bed of each patient during surgery. The intra- and postoperative complications were observed and evaluated, and the improvement in symptoms was assessed. An additional 23 patients with stage II thymoma undergoing radical surgery from April to August 2016 were chosen as the control group.One month after the operation, only 1 patient in the IORT group had cough, increased levels of leucocytes and neutrophils, and pulmonary inflammation on chest computed tomography. Reactive inflammation and pleural effusion in the 2 groups were similar (P > .05). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the improvement of myasthenia gravis (P > .05). Postoperative chest computed tomography and routine blood examination at 3 and 12 months showed that all the patients recovered, with normal hemogram levels and no pulmonary fibrosis around the radiation field. In addition, ultrasonic cardiography and electrocardiography demonstrated no significant difference before or after surgery within the IORT group. At the end of the follow-up, all the patients were alive, no relapse or remote metastasis was observed in the IORT group, and 2 inpatients in the control group had experienced relapse at 24 and 26 months. There was a significant difference in disease-free survival between the 2 groups (P = .00).It is safe to administer low-energy INTRABEAM IORT at a dose of approximately 10 Gy in patients with stage II invasive thymoma. INTRABEAM IORT does not significantly increase operation- or radiation-related complications and has no significant effect on vital organs such as the lungs and heart. Its long-term efficacy is worth expecting.

Dosimetric evaluation of incorporating the revised V4.0 calibration protocol for breast intraoperative radiotherapy with the INTRABEAM system

In breast‐targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) clinical trials (TARGIT‐B, TARGIT‐E, TARGIT‐US), a single fraction of radiation is delivered to the tumor bed during surgery with 1.5‐ to 5.0‐cm diameter spherical applicators and an INTRABEAM x‐ray source (XRS). This factory‐calibrated XRS is characterized by two depth‐dose curves (DDCs) named "TARGIT" and "V4.0.” Presently, the TARGIT DDC is used to treat patients enrolled in clinical trials; however, the V4.0 DDC is shown to better represent the delivered dose. Therefore, we reevaluate the delivered prescriptions under the TARGIT protocols using the V4.0 DDC. A 20‐Gy dose was prescribed to the surface of the spherical applicator, and the TARGIT DDC was used to calculate the treatment time. For a constant treatment time, the V4.0 DDC was used to recalculate the dosimetry to evaluate differences in dose rate, dose, and equivalent dose in 2‐Gy fractions (EQD2) for an α/β = 3.5 Gy (endpoint of locoregional relapse). At the surface of the tumor bed (i.e., spherical applicator surface), the calculations using the V4.0 DDC predicted increased values for dose rate (43–16%), dose (28.6–23.2 Gy), and EQD2 (95–31%) for the 1.5‐ to 5.0‐cm diameter spherical applicator sizes, respectively. In general, dosimetric differences are greatest for the 1.5‐cm diameter spherical applicator. The results from this study can be interpreted as a reevaluation of dosimetry or the dangers of underdosage, which can occur if the V4.0 DDC is inadvertently used for TARGIT clinical trial patients. Because the INTRABEAM system is used in TARGIT clinical trials, accurate knowledge about absorbed dose is essential for making meaningful comparisons between radiation treatment modalities, and reproducible treatment delivery is imperative. The results of this study shed light on these concerns.

Dosimetric evaluation of the INTRABEAM system for breast intraoperative radiotherapy: A single-institution experience

Breast intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with the INTRABEAM system uses a 50 kV x-ray source to deliver a single fraction of radiation therapy to the lumpectomy cavity during breast-conserving surgery. We seek to perform a dosimetric analysis of the lumpectomy cavity for rigid spherical applicators. Water phantom measurements were acquired to validate the vendor-provided x-ray calibration. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as a 10 mm expansion beyond the spherical applicator, a dose-volume histogram (DVH) was generated and dose-volume parameters [D_min, D_1mm, V₉₀, V₈₀, V₅₀, HI] were reported. Additionally, the therapeutic treatment depth using the 90 and 80% isodose level was computed [R₉₀, R₈₀]. When the percent depth dose (PDD) is normalized to the surface of the applicator, smaller applicators have a steeper PDD. For a prescription dose of 20 Gy to the surface of the applicator, the range of dose-volume parameters for the PTV was: 3.15 to 6.84 Gy for D_min, 16.2 to 17.6 Gy for D_1mm, 2.6 to 6.9% for V₉₀, 5.5 to 15.1% for V₈₀, and 21.1 to 55.6% for V₅₀. For applicators 15 to 50 mm in diameter, the reported values were: 6.35 to 2.9 for HI, 0.53 to 0.85 mm for R₉₀, and 1.18 to 1.85 mm for R₈₀. Smaller applicators have reduced PTV coverage but elevated HI because the attenuation of the beam proximal to the source is more pronounced. Additionally, the presence of the aluminum filter for small applicators (≤30 mm) increases PTV coverage but reduces the dose rate on the applicator surface. The delivery of IORT is performed in the OR without the use of image-based planning. To overcome this limitation, we have generated sample DVH's and report dosimetric parameters to offer clinicians a unique dosimetric perspective.

Modern Brachytherapy

Brachytherapy involves the placement of radioactive sources within or very close to the tumor. This placement allows a high dose of radiotherapy to be delivered to the tumor while sparing the surrounding normal tissue. The delivery of brachytherapy has changed markedly over the years, with newer radioactive sources making delivery safer, image guidance techniques allowing more accurate placement of sources, and advanced planning systems allowing brachytherapy to be truly adaptive. This article explores the most modern techniques and current uses of brachytherapy in the treatment of gynecological, prostate, breast, rectal, and skin cancers.

Outcomes of intraoperative radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: Experience from a multidisciplinary breast oncology program

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) was implemented at our institution for early stage breast cancer patients including those with geographic or medical co-morbidity limitations to whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT).

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients (n = 127) who underwent IORT from 2009 to 2016 for breast cancer. Demographics, pathology, toxicity, and recurrences were ascertained.

RESULTS

The median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 62-73). At median follow-up (49.6 months), 5 patients (4%) had ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with median time to recurrence of 36.8 months. Acute and late grade ≥3 skin toxicities were observed in 3.1% and 4.7% of patients, respectively. A subset (n = 7) who received prior ipsilateral WBRT was found to have no subsequent local recurrence, one case of acute grade 3 skin toxicity, and no late toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

IORT is a safe and effective alternative to whole breast radiotherapy, and serves as a suitable alternative to completion mastectomy in locally recurrent breast cancer.

A randomized controlled trial testing a hyaluronic acid spacer injection for skin toxicity reduction of brachytherapy accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is a treatment option for selected early stage breast cancer patients. Some APBI techniques lead to skin toxicity with the skin dose as main risk factor. We hypothesize that a spacer injected between the skin and target volume reduces the skin dose and subsequent toxicity in permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) patients.

METHODS

In this parallel-group, single-center, randomized controlled trial, the effect of a subcutaneous spacer injection on skin toxicity among patients treated with PBSI is tested. Eligibility for participation is derived from international guidelines for suitable patients for partial breast radiotherapy, e.g. women aged ≥ 50 years with a histologically proven non-lobular breast carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), tumor size ≤ 3 cm, node-negative, and PBSI technically feasible. Among exclusion criteria are neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion, and allergy for hyaluronic acid. For the patients allocated to receive spacer, after the PBSI procedure, 4-10 cc of biodegradable hyaluronic acid (Barrigel™, Palette Life Sciences, Santa Barbara, CA, USA or Restylane SubQ®, Galderma Benelux, Breda, the Netherlands) is injected directly under the skin using ultrasound guidance to create an extra 0.5-1 cm space between the treatment volume and the skin. The primary outcome is the rate of telangiectasia at two years, blindly assessed using Bentzen's 4-point scale. Secondary outcomes include: local recurrence; disease-free and overall survival rates; adverse events (pain, redness, skin/subcutaneous induration, radiation dermatitis, pigmentation, surgical site infection); skin dose; cosmetic and functional results; and health-related quality of life. A Fisher's exact test will be used to test differences between groups on the primary outcome. Previous studies found 22.4% telangiectasia at two years. We expect the use of a spacer could reduce the occurrence of telangiectasia to 7.7%. A sample size of 230 patients will allow for a 10% lost to follow-up rate.

DISCUSSION

In this study, the effect of a subcutaneous spacer injection on the skin dose, late skin toxicity, and cosmetic outcome is tested in patients treated with PBSI in the setting of breast-conserving therapy. Our results will be relevant for most forms of breast brachytherapy as well as robotic radiosurgery, as skin spacers could protect the skin with these other techniques.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register, NTR6549 . Registered on 27 June 2017.

Subcutaneous spacer injection to reduce skin toxicity in breast brachytherapy: A pilot study on mastectomy specimens

PURPOSE

Accelerated partial breast irradiation is a treatment option for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer. Some accelerated partial breast irradiation techniques lead to skin toxicity with the skin dose as a main risk factor. Biodegradable spacers are effective and safe in prostate brachytherapy to protect the rectum. We hypothesize that a subcutaneous spacer injection reduces the skin dose in breast brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ultrasound-guided spacer injections, either hyaluronic acid (HA) or iodined polyethylene glycol (PEG), were performed on fresh mastectomy specimens. Success was defined as a spacer thickness of ≥5 mm in the high-dose skin area. Usability was scored using the system usability scale. Pre and postinjection CT scans were used to generate low-dose-rate seed brachytherapy treatment plans after defining a clinical target volume. Maximum dose to small skin volumes (D_0.2cc) and existence of hotspots (isodose ≥90% on 1 cm² of skin) were calculated as skin toxicity indicators.

RESULTS

We collected 22 mastectomy specimens; half had HA and half had PEG injection. Intervention success was 100% for HA and 90.9% for PEG (p = NS). Hydrodissection was feasible in 81.8% with HA and 63.6% with PEG. Median system usability scale score was 97.5 for HA and 82.5 for PEG (p < 0.001). Mean D_0.2cc was 80.8 Gy without spacer and 53.7 Gy with spacer (p < 0.001). Skin hotspots were present in 40.9% without spacer but none with spacer (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A spacer injection in mastectomy specimens is feasible. An extra 5 mm space is always achieved, thereby potentially reducing the skin dose dramatically in low-dose-rate seed breast brachytherapy.

Intraoperative Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer Treatment in a Rural Community

BACKGROUND

Access to health care poses particular challenges for patients living in rural communities. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) offers a treatment alternative to traditional whole-breast radiation therapy (WBRT) for select patients. This study aimed to analyze the use of IORT for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery at an academic institution located in a rural state.

METHODS

A retrospective review analyzed all patients at a single institution with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer from April 2012 to January 2017 who were undergoing breast-conserving surgery with either IORT or WBRT. Student's t test or Fisher's exact test was used to make statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing IORT (n = 117) were significantly older than patients treated with WBRT (n = 191) (65.6 vs 58.6 years; p < 0.001) and had smaller tumors on both preoperative imaging (1.04 vs 1.66 cm; p < 0.05) and final pathology (0.99 vs 1.48 cm; p < 0.05). Patients receiving IORT lived farther from the treating facility than patients treated with WBRT (67.2 vs 30.8 miles; p < 0.05). To account for biases created in the IORT selection criteria, subgroup analysis was performed for women receiving WBRT who fulfilled IORT selection criteria, and distance traveled remained significant (67.2 vs 31.4 miles; p < 0.05). Neither recurrence nor survival differed between the IORT and WBRT groups. Medicare reimbursement for IORT was approximately 50% more than for WBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

For women from rural communities, IORT appears to be an attractive option because these women tend to be older and to live farther from the treatment facility.

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT): A Series of 1000 Tumors

BACKGROUND

Two prospective, randomized trials, TARGIT-A and ELIOT, have shown intraoperative radiation therapy to be a safe alternative, with a low-risk of local recurrence, compared with whole breast radiation therapy, following breast-conserving surgery, for selected low-risk patients. We report the first 1000 tumors treated with this modality at our facility.

METHODS

A total of 1000 distinct breast cancers in 984 patients (16 bilateral) were treated with breast conserving surgery and X-ray IORT from June 2010 to August 2017. Patients were enrolled in an IORT registry trial. Local recurrence was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

There have been 28 ipsilateral local recurrences, ten DCIS and 18 invasive. Four local recurrences were within the IORT field, 13 outside of the IORT field but within the same quadrant as the index cancer, and 11 were new cancers in different quadrants. There have been four regional nodal recurrences and one distant recurrence. There have been no breast cancer related deaths and 14 non-breast cancer deaths. With a median follow-up of 36 months, Kaplan-Meier analysis projects 3.9% of patients will recur locally at 4 years. This includes all ipsilateral events in all quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

The local, regional, and distant recurrence rates observed in this trial were comparable to those of the prospective randomized TARGIT-A and ELIOT trials. The low complication rates previously reported by our group as well as the low recurrence rates reported in this study support the cautious use and continued study of X-ray IORT in women with low-risk breast cancer.

Adjuvant breast radiotherapy: How to trade-off cost and effectiveness?

INTRODUCTION

A series of health economic evaluations (HEE) has analysed the efficiency of new fractionation schedules and techniques for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. This overview assembles the available evidence and evaluates to what extent HEE-results can be compared.

METHODS

Based on a systematic literature review of HEEs from 1/1/2000 to 30/10/2016, all cost comparison (CC) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) comparing different adjuvant breast radiotherapy approaches were analysed. Costs were extracted and converted to Euro 2016 and costs per QALY were summarized in cost-effectiveness planes.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications are withheld, comparing different fractionation schedules and/or irradiation techniques or evaluating the value of adding radiotherapy. Normofractionation and intensity-modulated, interstitial or intraluminal techniques are important cost-drivers. Highest reimbursements are observed in the US, but may overestimate the real cost. Hypofractionation is cost-effective compared to normofractionation, the results of partial breast irradiation are less unequivocal. Intra-operative and external beam approaches seem the most cost-effective for favourable risk groups, but whole breast irradiation is superior in terms of health effect and omission of radiotherapy in terms of costs.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionation may be considered the most relevant comparator for new strategies in adjuvant breast radiotherapy, with omission of radiotherapy as an interesting alternative in the very favourable subcategories, especially for partial breast techniques. Although comparison of CC and CEA is hampered by the variability in clinical and economic settings, HEE-based evidence can guide decision-making to tailor-made strategies, allocating the optimal treatment in terms of effectiveness as well as efficiency to the right indication.

A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: Quality counted by numbers

BACKGROUND

Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments.

METHODS

HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results.

RESULTS

Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.

Therapeutic analysis of Intrabeam-based intraoperative radiation therapy in the treatment of unicentric breast cancer lesions utilizing a spherical target volume model

It is postulated that the outcomes in treating breast cancer with intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) would be affected by the residual cancer cell distribution within the tumor bed. The three-dimensional (3D) radiation doses of Intrabeam^TM (IB) IORT with a 4-cm spherical applicator at the energy of 50 and 40 kV were calculated. The modified linear quadratic model (MLQ) was used to estimate the radiobiological responses of the cancer cells and interspersed normal tissues with various radiosensitivities. By comparing the average survival fraction of normal tissues in IB-IORT and uniform dose treatment for the same level of cancer cell killing, the therapeutic ratios (TRs) were derived. The equivalent uniform dose (EUD) was found to increase with the prescription dose and decrease with the cancer cell infiltrating distance. For 50 kV beam at the 20 Gy prescription dose, the EUDs are 18.03, 16.49 and 13.56, 11. 29, and 9.28 Gy respectively, for 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, 9, and 15.0 mm of the cancer cell infiltrating distance into surrounding tissue. The dose rate of 50 kV is at least 1.87× higher than that of 40 kV beam. The EUDs of 50 kV beam are up to 15% higher than that of the 40 kV beam. The TR increases with the prescription dose, but decreases with the distance of cancer cell infiltration distance. Average TRs of 50 kV beam are up to 30% larger than that of 40 kV beam. In conclusion, IB-IORT can provide a possible therapeutic advantage on sparing more normal tissue compared with the External Beam IORT (EB-IORT) for shallowly populated unicentric breast lesion. Our data suggest that IB-IORT dose size should be adjusted based on the individual patient's cancer cell infiltrating distance for delivering an effective dose, one dose-fits-all regimen may have undertreated some patients with large cancer infiltrating distance.

Current controversies in radiotherapy for breast cancer

Multimodal treatment approaches have substantially improved the outcome of breast cancer patients in the last decades. Radiotherapy is an integral component of multimodal treatment concepts used in curative and palliative intention in numerous clinical situations from precursor lesions such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to advanced breast cancer. This review addresses current controversial topics in radiotherapy with special consideration of DCIS, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) and provides an update on the clinical practice guidelines of the Breast Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).

Radiation-related quality of life parameters after targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III trial TARGIT-A

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is a new treatment approach for early stage breast cancer. This study reports on the effects of IORT on radiation-related quality of life (QoL) parameters.

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty women with stage I-III breast cancer (age, 31 to 84 years) were entered into the study. A single-center subgroup of 87 women from the two arms of the randomized phase III trial TARGIT-A (TARGeted Intra-operative radioTherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer) was analyzed. Furthermore, results were compared to non-randomized control groups: n = 90 receiving IORT as a tumor bed boost followed by external beam whole breast radiotherapy (EBRT) outside of TARGIT-A (IORT-boost), and n = 53 treated with EBRT followed by an external-beam boost (EBRT-boost). QoL was collected using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 (QLQ-C30) and BR23 (QLQ-BR23). The mean follow-up period in the TARGIT-A groups was 32 versus 39 months in the non-randomized control groups.

RESULTS

Patients receiving IORT alone reported less general pain (21.3 points), breast (7.0 points) and arm (15.1 points) symptoms, and better role functioning (78.7 points) as patients receiving EBRT (40.9; 19.0; 32.8; and 60.5 points, respectively, P < 0.01). Patients receiving IORT alone also had fewer breast symptoms than TARGIT-A patients receiving IORT followed by EBRT for high risk features on final pathology (IORT-EBRT; 7.0 versus 29.7 points, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between TARGIT-A patients receiving IORT-EBRT compared to non-randomized IORT-boost or EBRT-boost patients and patients receiving EBRT without a boost.

CONCLUSIONS

In the randomized setting, important radiation-related QoL parameters after IORT were superior to EBRT. Non-randomized comparisons showed equivalent parameters in the IORT-EBRT group and the control groups.