Internal Mammary Node Irradiation Debate: Case Closed? Not Yet, and Maybe Never.

The IMN debate is still open and may never be closed for reasons outlined in this Comments and Controversies piece.

Lumpectomy without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 20-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study.

We report the 20-year rate of ipsilateral breast event (IBE) for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with lumpectomy without radiation on a non-randomized prospective clinical trial. Patients were enrolled in cohort 1: low- or intermediate-grade DCIS, size ≤ 2.5 cm (n = 561); or cohort 2: high-grade DCIS, size ≤ 1 cm (n = 104). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event distributions. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and tests for significance for event times. 561 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 and 104 in cohort 2. After central pathology review, 26% in cohort 1 were recategorized as high-grade and 26% in cohort 2 as low- or intermediate-grade. Mean DCIS size was similar at 7.5 mm in cohort 1 and 7.8 mm in cohort 2. Surgical margin was ≥3 mm in 96% of patients, and about 30% received tamoxifen. Median follow-up was 19.2 years. There were 104 IBEs, of which 54 (52%) were invasive. The IBE and invasive IBE rates increased in both cohorts up to 15 years, then plateaued. The 20-year IBE rates were 17.8% for cohort 1 and 28.7% for cohort 2 (p = 0.005), respectively. Invasive IBE occurred in 9.8% and 15.1% (p = 0.09), respectively. On multivariable analysis, IBE risk increased with size and was higher in cohort 2, but grade and margin width were not significantly associated with IBE. For patients with DCIS treated with excision without radiation, the rate of IBE increased with size and assigned cohort mostly in the first 15 years.

Omission of Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Women With Breast Cancer With Low Clinical and Genomic Risk: 5-Year Outcomes of IDEA.

PURPOSE: Multiple studies have shown a low risk of ipsilateral breast events (IBEs) or other recurrences for selected patients age 65-70 years or older with stage I breast cancers treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and endocrine therapy (ET) without adjuvant radiotherapy. We sought to evaluate whether younger postmenopausal patients could also be successfully treated without radiation therapy, adding a genomic assay to classic selection factors. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients age 50-69 years with pT1N0 unifocal invasive breast cancer with margins ≥2 mm after BCS whose tumors were estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative with Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score ≤18 were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm trial of radiotherapy omission if they consented to take at least 5 years of ET. The primary end point was the rate of locoregional recurrence 5 years after BCS. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and October 2018, 200 eligible patients were enrolled. Among the 186 patients with clinical follow-up of at least 56 months, overall and breast cancer-specific survival rates at 5 years were both 100%. The 5-year freedom from any recurrence was 99% (95% CI, 96 to 100). Crude rates of IBEs for the entire follow-up period for patients age 50-59 years and age 60-69 years were 3.3% (2/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively; crude rates of overall recurrence were 5.0% (3/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively. CONCLUSION: This trial achieved a very low risk of recurrence using a genomic assay in combination with classic clinical and biologic features for treatment selection, including postmenopausal patients younger than 60 years. Long-term follow-up of this trial and others will help determine whether the option of avoiding initial radiotherapy can be offered to a broader group of women than current guidelines recommend.

A critical appraisal of the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis on stereotactic body radiation therapy versus external beam radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and where we go from here.

Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality for pain control in patients with bone metastases. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which allows delivering a much higher dose per fraction while sparing critical structures compared to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT), has become more widely used, especially in the oligometastatic setting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the pain response rate of SBRT and cEBRT for bone metastases have shown conflicting results, as have four recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses of these trials. Possible reasons for the different outcomes between these reviews include differences in methodology, which trials were included, and the endpoints examined and how they were defined. We suggest ways to improve analysis of these RCTs, particularly performing an individual patient-level meta-analysis since the trials included heterogeneous populations. The results of such studies will help guide future investigations needed to validate patient selection criteria, optimize SBRT dose schedules, include additional endpoints (such as the time to onset of pain response, durability of pain response, quality of life (QOL), and side effects of SBRT), and better assess the cost-effectiveness and trade-offs of SBRT compared to cEBRT. An international Delphi consensus to guide selection of optimal candidates for SBRT is warranted before more prospective data is available.

Quantifying radiation in the axillary bed at the site of lymphedema surgical prevention.

PURPOSE: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) is a procedure known to reduce the risk of lymphedema in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). However, patients who receive adjuvant radiotherapy are at increased risk of lymphedema. The aim of this study was to quantify the extent of radiation at the site of surgical prevention. METHODS: We recently began deploying clips at the site of ILR to identify the site during radiation planning. A retrospective review was performed to identify breast cancer patients who underwent ILR with clip deployment and adjuvant radiation therapy from October 2020 to April 2022. Patients were excluded if they had not completed radiotherapy. The exposure and dose of radiation received by the site was determined and recorded. RESULTS: In a cohort of 11 patients, the site fell within the radiation field in 7 patients (64%) and received a median dose of 4280 cGy. Among these 7 patients, 3 had sites located within tissue considered at risk of oncologic recurrence and the remaining 4 sites received radiation from a tangential field treating the breast or chest wall. The median dose to the ILR site for the 4 patients whose sites were outside the radiation fields was 233 cGy. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that even when the site of surgical prevention was not within the targeted radiation field during treatment planning, it remains susceptible to radiation. Strategies for limiting radiation at this site are needed.

A Prospective Study of Radiation Therapy After Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction: Analysis of the Dosimetric Implications.

PURPOSE: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) are the primary causes of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) is a novel surgical procedure that reduces the incidence of BCRL after ALND. The ILR anastomosis is placed in a location thought to be outside the standard radiation therapy fields to prevent radiation-induced fibrosis of the reconstructed vessels; however, there is excess risk of BCRL from RNI even after ILR. The purpose of this study was to understand the radiation dose distribution in relation to the ILR anastomosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective study included 13 patients treated with ALND/ILR from October 2020 to June 2022. A twirl clip deployed during surgery was used to identify the ILR anastomosis site during radiation treatment planning. All cases were planned using a 3D-conformal technique with opposed tangents and an obliqued supraclavicular (SCV) field. RESULTS: RNI deliberately targeted axillary Levels 1 to 3 and the SCV nodal region in 4 patients and was limited to Level 3 and SCV nodes in 9 patients. The ILR clip was located in Level 1 in 12 patients and Level 2 in 1 patient. In patients with radiation directed at only Level 3 and SCV, the ILR clip was still within the radiation field in 5 of these patients and received a median dose of 3939 cGy (range, 2025-4961 cGy). The median dose to the ILR clip was 3939 cGy (range, 139-4961 cGy) for the entire cohort. The median dose was 4275 cGy (range, 2025-4961 cGy) when the ILR clip was within any radiation field and 233 cGy (range, 139-280 cGy) when the clip was outside all fields. CONCLUSION: The ILR anastomosis was often directly irradiated with 3D-conformal techniques and received substantial radiation dose, even when the site was not deliberately targeted. Long-term analysis will help determine whether minimizing radiation dose to the anastomosis will decrease BCRL rates.

Appropriateness of the 30-day expected mortality metric in palliative radiation treatment: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The 30-day expected mortality rate is frequently used as a metric to determine which patients benefit from palliative radiation treatment (RT). We conducted a narrative review to examine whether its use as a metric might be appropriate for patient selection. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify relevant studies that highlight the benefits of palliative RT in timely symptom management among patients with a poor performance status, the accuracy of predicting survival near the end of life and ways to speed up the process of RT administration through rapid response clinics. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: Several trials have demonstrated substantial response rates for pain and/or bleeding by four weeks and sometimes within the first two weeks after RT. Models of patient survival have limited accuracy, particularly for predicting whether patients will die within the next 30 days. Dedicated Rapid Access Palliative RT (RAPRT) clinics, in which patients are assessed, simulated and treated on the same day, reduce the number of patient visits to the radiation oncology department and hence the burden on the patient as well as costs. CONCLUSIONS: Single-fraction palliative RT should be offered to eligible patients if they are able to attend treatment and could potentially benefit from symptom palliation, irrespective of predicted life expectancy. We discourage the routine use of the 30-day mortality as the only metric to decide whether to offer RT. More common implementation of RAPRT clinics could result in a significant benefit for patients of all life expectancies, but particularly those having short ones.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective." RESULTS: The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%. CONCLUSIONS: U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of No Adjuvant Therapy Versus Partial Breast Irradiation Alone Versus Combined Treatment for Treatment of Low-Risk DCIS: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who undergo partial mastectomy remains controversial, particularly for low-risk patients (60 years or older, estrogen-positive, tumor extent < 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2, and margins ≥ 3 mm). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three strategies: no adjuvant treatment after surgery, a five-fraction course of accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI]-alone), or APBI plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes including local recurrence, distant metastases, and survival as well as toxicity data were modeled by a patient-level Markov microsimulation model, which were validated against trial data. Costs of treatment and possible adverse events were included from the societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: No adjuvant therapy was the least costly approach ($5,744), followed by APBI-alone ($11,070); combined therapy was costliest ($16,052). Adjuvant therapy resulted in slightly higher QALYs (no adjuvant, 11.320; APBI-alone, 11.343; and combination, 11.381). In the base case, no treatment was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $239,109/QALY for APBI-alone and $171,718/QALY for combined therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combined therapy compared with APBI-alone was $131,949. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that no therapy was cost effective (defined as $100,000/QALY of lower) in 63% of trials, APBI-alone in 19%, and the combination in 18%. CONCLUSION: No adjuvant therapy represents the most cost-effective approach for postmenopausal women 60 years or older who receive partial mastectomy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.

Acceptability of a patient decision aid for women aged 70 and older with stage I, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive decision aid (DA) for women ≥70 years with Stage I ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer was developed to support locoregional and systemic treatment decision-making. We aimed to test the acceptability of this novel DA in women newly-diagnosed with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women ≥70 diagnosed with Stage I, ER+/HER2- breast cancer were recruited from three Boston-area hospitals. They underwent baseline interviews after initial surgical consultation, reviewed the DA, and were surveyed <2 weeks later to determine DA acceptability (e.g., was it helpful?), changes in decisional conflict, stage of decision-making, and knowledge. Participants could optionally complete a three-month follow-up. Paired t-tests and McNemar's tests were used for statistical comparisons, and thematic analyses were conducted to identify themes in participants' open-ended comments. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 56 eligible patients approached completed the baseline and acceptability surveys, and 25 completed the three-month follow-up. Participants' mean age was 74.7 years (±3.8). Nearly all participants (n = 31, 94%) strongly agreed that the DA was helpful and felt that the DA prepared them for treatment decision-making, with a mean decision preparation score of 4.1 (out of 5.0); 6% (n = 2) found it very anxiety provoking. Knowledge improved with a mean of 9.0 out of 14 questions correct at baseline to 10.6 correct on the acceptability survey (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A DA tailored to women ≥70 with Stage I, ER+, HER2- breast cancer increased knowledge and was perceived to be helpful by older women. A randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Use of a Radiation Tumor Bed Boost After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Whole-Breast Irradiation: Time Trends and Correlates.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate time trends and correlates of the use of a radiation tumor bed boost (TBB) after breast-conserving surgery and either conventional or hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (CWBI or HWBI) for patients with early stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2016. We evaluated the utilization of TBB before and after publication of the Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology margin guidelines in relation to sociodemographic variables, treatment facility, tumor characteristics, and whole-breast fractionation. RESULTS: The population included 380,387 patients, of whom 76.7% received a TBB. Utilization of TBB decreased over time (2012-2013: 79.2%; 2014: 76.6%; 2015-2016: 74.7%; P < .001); this was seen for most subgroups evaluated. Rates of TBB differed by facility type and region. There was a decrease in TBB use in patients treated with CWBI over time (2012-2013: 84.9%; 2014: 83.5%; 2015-2016: 82.3%; P < .001) but an increase among patients treated with HWBI (2012-2013: 55.5%; 2014: 60.7%; 2015-2016: 65.1%; P < .001); this was also seen for low-risk patients (age >70 years, negative margins). Among patients undergoing HWBI, TBB was more frequently used when 15 fractions were used compared with 16 fractions (76.8% vs 59.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of TBB decreased over time, coinciding with the publication of new margin guidelines, for patients receiving CWBI and those with negative margins, but TBB use increased for patients treated with HWBI. Hence, fractionation regimen is a critical variable in analyzing changes over time in the practice patterns of TBB.

The Diminishing Impact of Margin Definitions and Width on Local Recurrence Rates following Breast-Conserving Therapy for Early-Stage Invasive Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal tumor-free margin definition and width following breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for early-stage invasive cancers has been evaluated in previous meta-analyses and guidelines. We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess how improvements in treatment over time have affected the impact of margins on local recurrence (LR) rates over time. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 38 eligible studies comprising 54,502 patients treated between 1968 and 2010. Inclusion criteria included patients treated with BCT and minimum follow-up of 50 months, pathologic definitions of margin status explicitly stated, and LR data in relation to margin status. Data were pooled using a Bayesian logistic regression model to evaluate the risk of LR in relation to both margin status and study enrollment periods. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.25 years. Absolute LR rates decreased over time for each margin width cohort, with maximum differences between negative margin groups of less than 1% for the most recent enrollment period. However, relative rates of LR between different margin groups remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: With an additional 22,000 patients compared with the previous meta-analysis, this updated meta-analysis supports the consensus guideline of "no tumor on ink" for the majority of patients. Additionally, while concerns exist regarding a benefit with wider margins from previous studies, the analysis demonstrates the impact of margin width on LR rates has declined substantially over time, with very small differences between the narrowest and widest margin groups in the most recent cohort. Hence, older studies appear to have limited value to inform current management guidelines.