Unmasking anxiety: a head-to-head comparison of open and closed masks in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.

Background: Facemasks accurately immobilise patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving radiotherapy (RT). However, such masks are associated with treatment related distress, a prognostic factor for poorer survival. Open masks offer increased comfort and patient satisfaction. We investigated whether open masks could immobilise patients without affecting treatment accuracy. Materials and methods: Over an 18-month period, all HNC RT patients with anxiety were offered open masks. Once 30 patients had completed treatment, set-up data was compared to patients in closed masks. The mean displacement and one-dimensional standard deviations (SD) of the mean, systematic and random set-up errors were calculated for translational directions: anterior-posterior (x), superior-inferior (y), medial-lateral (z). The mean and SD of the mean was calculated for rotational displacements. Mann-Whitney U was used to determine any significant differences between set-up data. Results: Sixty patients were included (30 open & 30 closed masks). There was no statistically significant difference found in the x (p = 0.701), y (p = 0.246) or z (p = 0.535) direction for the SD of the mean displacements between both masks. No statistically significant difference was found in the SD of means for rotational displacements. The calculated planning target volume (PTV) margin requirements were minimally less for the closed masks 3.5, 2.6, and 2.7 mm (x, y, z, respectively) versus 4.2, 3.2, and 3.7 mm, respectively, for open masks. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that open masks maintain accuracy at levels comparable to closed masks in patients with anxiety. The minor difference in the calculated PTV margin could be rectified with daily on-line imaging or surface guided imaging.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments: A systematic review of their effects on mortality.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments can reduce breast cancer mortality but may increase mortality from other causes. Information regarding treatment benefits and risks is scattered widely through the literature. To inform clinical practice we collated and reviewed the highest quality evidence. METHODS: Guidelines were searched to identify adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment options recommended in early invasive breast cancer. For each option, systematic literature searches identified the highest-ranking evidence. For radiotherapy risks, searches for dose-response relationships and modern organ doses were also undertaken. RESULTS: Treatment options recommended in the USA and elsewhere included chemotherapy (anthracycline, taxane, platinum, capecitabine), anti-human epidermal growth factor 2 therapy (trastuzumab, pertuzumab, trastuzumab emtansine, neratinib), endocrine therapy (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitor, ovarian ablation/suppression) and bisphosphonates. Radiotherapy options were after breast conserving surgery (whole breast, partial breast, tumour bed boost, regional nodes) and after mastectomy (chest wall, regional nodes). Treatment options were supported by randomised evidence, including > 10,000 women for eight treatment comparisons, 1,000-10,000 for fifteen and < 1,000 for one. Most treatment comparisons reduced breast cancer mortality or recurrence by 10-25%, with no increase in non-breast-cancer death. Anthracycline chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased overall non-breast-cancer mortality. Anthracycline risk was from heart disease and leukaemia. Radiation-risks were mainly from heart disease, lung cancer and oesophageal cancer, and increased with increasing heart, lung and oesophagus radiation doses respectively. Taxanes increased leukaemia risk. CONCLUSIONS: These benefits and risks inform treatment decisions for individuals and recommendations for groups of women.

Heart failure after treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop dose-response relationships for heart failure (HF) following radiation and anthracyclines in breast cancer treatment, and to assess HF associations with trastuzumab and endocrine therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A case-control study was performed within a cohort of breast cancer survivors treated during 1980-2009. Cases (n = 102) had HF as first cardiovascular diagnosis and were matched 1:3 on age and date of diagnosis. Individual cardiac radiation doses were estimated, and anthracycline doses and use of trastuzumab and endocrine therapy were abstracted from oncology notes. For HF cases who received radiotherapy, the estimated median mean heart dose (MHD) was 6.8 Gy [interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-13.7]. MHD was not associated with HF risk overall [excess rate ratio (ERR) = 1%/Gy, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2 to 10]. In patients treated with anthracyclines, exposure of ≥20% of the heart to ≥20 Gy was associated with a rate ratio of 5.7 (95% CI 1.7-21.7) compared to <10% exposed to ≥20 Gy. For cases who received radiotherapy, median cumulative anthracycline dose was 247 mg/m2 (IQR 240-319). A dose-dependent increase was observed after anthracycline without trastuzumab (ERR = 1.5% per mg/m2 , 95% CI 0.5-4.1). After anthracycline and trastuzumab, the rate ratio was 34.9 (95% CI 11.1-110.1) compared to no chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In absence of anthracyclines, breast cancer radiotherapy was not associated with increased HF risk. Strongly elevated HF risks were observed after treatment with anthracyclines and also after treatment with trastuzumab. The benefits of these systemic treatments usually exceed the risks of HF, but our results emphasize the need to support ongoing efforts to evaluate preventative strategies.