Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer Including Risk-adapted Boost: Update on Tolerance and Efficacy of an Accelerated START A Regime.

AIM: To present an update of a prospective study evaluating an accelerated hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) schedule of the START A trial plus hypofractionated boost in breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and forty consecutive patients ≥55 years were included in this study. Patients received postoperative WBI with 13×3.2 Gy to 41.6 Gy plus a boost of 3.0 Gy/fraction to 9-12 Gy applied in <3.5 weeks, depending on the resection margin. Prospectively planned follow-up (FU) visits, including objective and subjective assessment of treatment tolerance, were performed at 0 and 8 weeks, as well as one, two, four or more years following radiotherapy (RT). RESULTS: The 3-year rates of local control, nodal control, disease-free and overall survival were 99%, 100%, 96% and 91%, respectively. Cosmetic outcome was very good with 99% (n=110/111), 98% (n=99/101) and 100% (n=59/59) of the patients being satisfied or very satisfied one, two and four years after RT, respectively. CONCLUSION: Acceleration of the START A regime with 41.6 Gy WBI plus additional boost of 9-12 Gy remained effective and well-tolerated.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for breast cancer acceleration of the START A treatment regime: intermediate tolerance and efficacy.

PURPOSE: Prospective evaluation of accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients treated with 41.6 Gy in 13 fractions plus boost delivered five times a week. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 03/2009 and 10/2012 98 consecutive patients aged >55 years presenting with breast cancer (invasive cancer: n = 95, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): n = 3) after breast conserving surgery were treated in our institution with the following schedule: 41.6 Gy in 13 fractions 4 times a week and 9 or 12 Gy boost in 3 or 4 fractions (on day 5 each week), cumulative dose: 50.6 Gy in 3.2 weeks or 53.6 Gy in 3.4 weeks, respectively depending on resection status. 56 patients had a T1 tumor, 39 a T2 tumor. N-status was as follows: N0: n = 71, N1: n = 25, N2/3: n = 2. 23 patients (24%) received chemotherapy before RT. A prospectively planned follow-up (FU) visit with objective and subjective assessment of treatment tolerance (questionnaires) was performed 0 and 8 weeks after RT completion, and one, two and four years later, respectively. RESULTS: Mean/median follow-up was 32/28 months (range: 12-56). After 2 years local control, loco-regional control and disease-free survival was 100%, 100%, and 98%, respectively. Overall survival was 96% at 2 years. Cosmetic outcome was very good with patients being satisfied or very satisfied in 99% (n = 86/87), 97% (n = 55/57) and 100% (n = 25/25) after one, two and four years after RT, respectively. No grade ≥ 2 pain was described in the 25 patients with a FU of at least 4 years. Fibrosis, telangiectasia and edema were found in 7-15%, 0-22% and 0-11% at one, two, and four years, respectively, and are comparable to other trials. CONCLUSION: The applied hypofractionated RT regime with single doses of 3.2 Gy plus boost doses of 9-12 Gy in 3-4 fractions applied in 5 sessions a week was effective and well tolerated on intermediate term FU.

Clinical evaluation of an anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system.

The Delta(4DVH) Anatomy 3D quality assurance (QA) system (ScandiDos), which converts the measured detector dose into the dose distribution in the patient geometry was evaluated. It allows a direct comparison of the calculated 3D dose with the measured back-projected dose. In total, 16 static and 16 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) fields were planned using four different energies. Isocenter dose was measured with a pinpoint chamber in homogeneous phantoms to investigate the dose prediction by the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy algorithm for static fields. Dose distributions of VMAT fields were measured using GAFCHROMIC film. Gravitational gantry errors up to 10° were introduced into all VMAT plans to study the potential of detecting errors. Additionally, 20 clinical treatment plans were verified. For static fields, the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy predicted the isocenter dose accurately, with a deviation to the measured phantom dose of 1.1% ± 0.6%. For VMAT fields the predicted Delta(4DVH) Anatomy dose in the isocenter plane corresponded to the measured dose in the phantom, with an average gamma agreement index (GAI) (3 mm/3%) of 96.9± 0.4%. The Delta(4DVH) Anatomy detected the induced systematic gantry error of 10° with a relative GAI (3 mm/3%) change of 5.8% ± 1.6%. The conventional Delta(4PT) QA system detected a GAI change of 4.2%± 2.0%. The conventional Delta(4PT) GAI (3 mm/3%) was 99.8% ± 0.4% for the clinical treatment plans. The mean body and PTV-GAI (3 mm/5%) for the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy were 96.4% ± 2.0% and 97.7%± 1.8%; however, this dropped to 90.8%± 3.4% and 87.1% ± 4.1% for passing criteria of 3 mm/3%. The anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system predicts the dose distribution correctly for a homogeneous case. The limiting factor for the error detection is the large variability in the error-free plans. The dose calculation algorithm is inferior to that used in the TPS (Eclipse).