1
|
Leong WL, Battiston K, Cheung F, Fulton C, Lin A, Levin W, Done S, Santerre P. Abstract P3-13-11: The outcomes of ReFilx soft tissue filler as an immediate reconstruction technique for lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p3-13-11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Lumpectomy for breast cancer can often result in poor cosmetic outcomes which can lead to long-lasting impairment of quality of life. ReFilx is a synthetic porous degradable polyurethane scaffold that has mechanical properties comparable to that of native healthy breast tissue. It has been shown in two previous porcine studies to preserve breast shape and volume over 9 months when inserted into the cavities immediately after lumpectomy. We observed minimal foreign body reaction with good integration of the host tissue while the material degraded over time. In this study, we examined the healing process of lumpectomy treated with radiation. Radiotherapy is currently a standard adjuvant therapy after lumpectomy for breast cancers; and radiation is known to affect the healing process in general. Objective: To evaluate ReFilx, as soft tissue fillers for lumpectomy cavities in combination with standard radiotherapy. Hypothesis: ReFilx will preserve breast shape and volume by supporting tissue infiltration with minimal inflammation in the presence of clinically relevant radiotherapy. Methods: 3 female Yucatan minipigs received lumpectomies carried out using electrocautery to remove normal breast tissue of approximately 2 cm diameter, after which the cavities were filled with (case) or without ReFilx (sham control) (n=3 for each condition, each pig has 12-13 breasts). 6 weeks post-implantation, 2 of the pigs received radiation directed at the right half of their bodies (6 breasts per pig) for a total dose of 42.4 Gy delivered over 15 fractions using a clinical linear accelerator. The delivered doses to target sites and the adjacent tissue were confirmed with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs). A third pig was maintained as a non-irradiated control. Ultrasound examinations were performed every 3 weeks post-implantation. At week 24 and 36, samples consisted of n=3 for irradiated and non-irradiated ReFilx and sham sites for the half-irradiated pigs, and n=3 for non-irradiated ReFilx and sham sites for the non-irradiated control pig were excised by mastecomy, the tissue samples were fixed in 10% buffered formalin for subsequent histological (H&E, Masson's Trichrome) studies. Potential side effects were monitored by vital signs, pain control, wound checks, ultrasound and blood tests. Necropsies were performed at the conclusion of the study. Results: Ultrasound examination indicated no difference between ReFilx's ability to maintain breast shape and volume with or without the presence of radiation treatment, in contrast to the collapse of the sham sites by 24 weeks. Similarly, the histology of irradiated and non-irradiated ReFilx samples showed similar levels of tissue infiltration, inflammatory changes and degradation of ReFilx. There was no significant side effects observed. Conclusions: ReFilx's ability to act as a soft tissue filler for breast volume restoration post-lumpectomy does not appear to be significantly impacted by the presence of clinically relevant radiation treatment. Longer-term follow-up is currently in progress for this study. Acknowledgements: Connaught Innovation Award (University of Toronto) and Joule Innovation Fund (Canadian Medical Association).
Citation Format: Leong WL, Battiston K, Cheung F, Fulton C, Lin A, Levin W, Done S, Santerre P. The outcomes of ReFilx soft tissue filler as an immediate reconstruction technique for lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-13-11.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- WL Leong
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - K Battiston
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - F Cheung
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - C Fulton
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - A Lin
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - W Levin
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S Done
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - P Santerre
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Gu S, Fong C, Tuck A, Sengupta S, Elavathil L, Jani P, Done S, Miller N, Youngson B, Bonin M, Chang M, Paszat L. Abstract P3-17-01: Long-term rates of breast preservation after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p3-17-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Despite evidence that radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) halves the risk of recurrence, the benefit of RT in the management of DCIS continues to be a matter of controversy. One argument against the use of RT after BCS is that patients who develop ipsilateral local recurrence (LR) can be salvaged with further breast-conserving surgery such that the omission of RT will lead to high rates of breast preservation while minimizing exposure to RT. Breast preservation is an important determinant of quality of life for women with early stage breast cancer and DCIS. Yet the management of LR and the impact of RT on the resultant long-term risks of bilateral breast preservation in a population of women with DCIS are unclear. We assessed the treatment of LR, the impact of RT on the use of salvage mastectomy and the long-term risks of bilateral breast preservation achieved in a population of women with DCIS treated with BCS alone or BCS+RT.
Methods: A population-based analysis of women diagnosed with DCIS from 1994-2003 treated with BCS alone or BCS+RT with pathology review. Treatment and outcomes, including the development of LR and contralateral breast events, were determined by administrative databases with validation by review of operative or pathology reports. Median follow-up was 10.2 years for cases treated by BCS alone, 11.6 years for those treated by BCS+RT. We used a propensity-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate factors associated with the use of salvage mastectomy for LR and to evaluate factors associated with any mastectomy. We assessed the risk of long-term breast preservation by calculating the KM 10-year risk of ipsilateral mastectomy and any mastectomy.
Results: The population cohort includes 3303 women with pure DCIS;1649 (50%) were treated by BCS alone, 1654 (50%) received BCS+RT. Women treated with RT had more high risk features of DCIS than those treated by BCS alone. LR developed in 343 (21%) women treated by BCS alone and in 257 (15.5%) women treated by BCS+RT (p<0.01). Most women who developed LR received salvage mastectomy, irrespective of age at diagnosis and histology. Salvage mastectomy was used in 57.4% (197/343) of cases that recurred after BCS alone and in 67.6% (173/257) that recurred after BCS+RT. The likelihood of receiving salvage mastectomy for LR was similar in patients initially treated by BCS+RT vs. those initially treated BCS alone. Most (90%) of mastectomies were performed for a LR. Overall, individuals initially treated by BCS+RT had a 29% lower probability of having a mastectomy at 10 years compared to those treated by BCS alone (HR=0.71, 95%CI: 0.60,0.84,p<0.0001). The 10 year mastectomy-free survival rates are 82.7% for women initially treated by BCS alone and 87.3% for those treated by BCS+RT (p=0.0096).
Conclusion: Women who received RT after BCS for DCIS experience a greater likelihood of long-term bilateral breast preservation. This is attributable to the lower risks of LR and that most local recurrences after breast-conserving therapy are treated by salvage mastectomy. Long-term breast preservation should be considered in discussions weighing the benefits and risks of RT after conservative surgery for DCIS.
Citation Format: Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Gu S, Fong C, Tuck A, Sengupta S, Elavathil L, Jani P, Done S, Miller N, Youngson B, Bonin M, Chang M, Paszat L. Long-term rates of breast preservation after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-17-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Rakovitch
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S Nofech-Mozes
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - W Hanna
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S Gu
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - C Fong
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - A Tuck
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S Sengupta
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - L Elavathil
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - P Jani
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S Done
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - N Miller
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - B Youngson
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - M Bonin
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - M Chang
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - L Paszat
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Henderson General Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, ON, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|