Direct-to-Implant vs Tissue Expander Placement in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after mastectomy has gained increasing popularity. While concerns over ischemic complications related to tension on the mastectomy flap persist, newer techniques and technologies have enhanced safety of this technique. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of DTI and 2-stage tissue expander (TE) reconstruction. METHODS: A prospective cohort design was utilized to compare the incidence of reconstructive failure among patients undergoing DTI and TE reconstruction by unadjusted bivariate and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses. Secondary clinical outcomes of interest included specific complications requiring intervention (infection, seroma, hematoma, mastectomy flap necrosis, incisional dehiscence, device exposure) and time to final drain removal. Patient-reported outcomes on BREAST-Q were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients (257 breasts) underwent DTI reconstruction and 222 patients (405 breasts) received TEs. DTI patients were significantly younger with lower BMIs; less diabetes, hypertension, and smoking; and smaller breast sizes; they also underwent more nipple-sparing mastectomies with prepectoral reconstructions. Rates of any complication (18% DTI vs 24% TE, P = .047), reconstructive failure (5.1% vs 12%, P = .004), and seroma (3.9% vs 11%, P < .001) were significantly lower in the DTI cohort on unadjusted analyses; however, there were no significant differences on adjusted regressions. Patient-reported satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being were more substantively improved with DTI reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is a viable option for postmastectomy reconstruction in carefully selected patients, with no significant increase in reconstructive failure or other complications.

Cortiva vs AlloDerm in Prepectoral and Partial Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are utilized for soft tissue support in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Little high-level evidence supports the use of one ADM over another. Therefore, we sought to compare Cortiva 1mm Allograft Dermis to AlloDerm RTU, the most studied ADM in the literature. METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing Cortiva to AlloDerm in prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction was performed at two academic hospitals from March 2017 to December 2021. Reconstructions were direct-to-implant (DTI) or tissue expander (TE). Primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as TE explantation prior to planned further reconstruction, or explantation of DTI reconstructions before 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were additional complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cost. RESULTS: There were 302 patients included - 151 AlloDerm (280 breasts), 151 Cortiva (277 breasts). Reconstructions in both cohorts were majority TE (62% vs 38% DTI), smooth device (68% vs 32% textured), and prepectoral (80% vs 20% subpectoral). Reconstructive failure was no different between ADMs (AlloDerm 9.3% vs Cortiva 8.3%, p=0.68). There were no additional differences in any complications or PROs between ADMs. Seromas occurred in 7.6% of Cortiva but 12 % of AlloDerm cases, whose odds of seroma formation were two-fold (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01-3.67, p=0.047) higher. AlloDerm variable cost was 10-15% more than Cortiva, and there were no additional cost differences. CONCLUSION: When assessing safety, clinical performance, PROs, and cost, Cortiva is non-inferior to AlloDerm in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction and may be cheaper with lower risk of seroma formation.

Differential chromatin accessibility and transcriptional dynamics define breast cancer subtypes and their lineages.

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and treatment is guided by biomarker profiles representing distinct molecular subtypes. Breast cancer arises from the breast ductal epithelium, and experimental data suggests breast cancer subtypes have different cells of origin within that lineage. The precise cells of origin for each subtype and the transcriptional networks that characterize these tumor-normal lineages are not established. In this work, we applied bulk, single-cell (sc), and single-nucleus (sn) multi-omic techniques as well as spatial transcriptomics and multiplex imaging on 61 samples from 37 breast cancer patients to show characteristic links in gene expression and chromatin accessibility between breast cancer subtypes and their putative cells of origin. We applied the PAM50 subtyping algorithm in tandem with bulk RNA-seq and snRNA-seq to reliably subtype even low-purity tumor samples and confirm promoter accessibility using snATAC. Trajectory analysis of chromatin accessibility and differentially accessible motifs clearly connected progenitor populations with breast cancer subtypes supporting the cell of origin for basal-like and luminal A and B tumors. Regulatory network analysis of transcription factors underscored the importance of BHLHE40 in luminal breast cancer and luminal mature cells, and KLF5 in basal-like tumors and luminal progenitor cells. Furthermore, we identify key genes defining the basal-like ( PRKCA , SOX6 , RGS6 , KCNQ3 ) and luminal A/B ( FAM155A , LRP1B ) lineages, with expression in both precursor and cancer cells and further upregulation in tumors. Exhausted CTLA4-expressing CD8+ T cells were enriched in basal-like breast cancer, suggesting altered means of immune dysfunction among breast cancer subtypes. We used spatial transcriptomics and multiplex imaging to provide spatial detail for key markers of benign and malignant cell types and immune cell colocation. These findings demonstrate analysis of paired transcription and chromatin accessibility at the single cell level is a powerful tool for investigating breast cancer lineage development and highlight transcriptional networks that define basal and luminal breast cancer lineages.

A prospective randomized clinical trial to assess antibiotic pocket irrigation on tissue expander breast reconstruction.

Bacterial infection is the most common complication following staged post-mastectomy breast reconstruction initiated with a tissue expander (TE). To limit bacterial infection, antibiotic irrigation of the surgical site is commonly performed despite little high-quality data to support this practice. We performed a prospective randomized control trial to compare the impact of saline irrigation alone to a triple antibiotic irrigation regimen (1 g cefazolin, 80 mg gentamicin, and 50,000 units of bacitracin in 500 mL of saline) for breast implant surgery. The microbiome in breasts with cancer (n = 16) was compared to those without (n = 16), as all patients (n = 16) had unilateral cancers but bilateral mastectomies (n = 32). Biologic and prosthetic specimens procured both at the time of mastectomy and during TE removal months later were analyzed for longitudinal comparison. Outcomes included clinical infection, bacterial abundance, and relative microbiome composition. No patient in either group suffered a reconstructive failure or developed an infection. Triple antibiotic irrigation administered at the time of immediate TE reconstruction did not reduce bacterial abundance or impact microbial diversity relative to saline irrigation at the time of planned exchange. Implanted prosthetic material adopted the microbial composition of the surrounding host tissue. In cancer-naïve breasts, relative to saline, antibiotic irrigation increased bacterial abundance on periprosthetic capsules (P = 0.03) and acellular dermal matrices (P = 0.04) and altered the microbiota on both. These data show that, relative to saline only, the use of triple antibiotic irrigation in TE breast reconstruction does impact the bacterial abundance and diversity of certain biomaterials from cancer-naïve breasts. IMPORTANCE The lifetime risk of breast cancer is ~13% in women and is treated with a mastectomy in ~50% of cases. The majority are reconstructed, usually starting with a tissue expander to help restore the volume for a subsequent permanent breast implant or the women's own tissues. The biopsychosocial benefits of breast reconstruction, though, can be tempered by a high complication rate of at least 7% but over 30% in some women. Bacterial infection is the most common complication, and can lead to treatment delays, patient physical and emotional distress and escalating health care cost. To limit this risk, plastic surgeons have tried a variety of strategies to limit bacterial infection including irrigating the pocket created after removing the breast implant with antibiotic solutions, but good-quality data are scarce. Herein, we study the value of antibiotics in pocket irrigation using a robust randomized clinical trial design and molecular microbiology approaches.

Lymph Node Positivity: Indication for Preoperative MRI?

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to determine what factors help predict benefit from preoperative MRI. METHODS: We conducted an IRB approved retrospective review of patients with breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI (2018-2021). Patients were divided into a cohort of no new disease detected on MRI versus new disease detected. RESULTS: Of 420 patients with a new diagnosis of breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI, 17% had new multicentric, multifocal, or contralateral disease detected. There was no difference between the two cohorts for age (p = 0.23), race (p = 0.45), family history (p = 0.47), breast density (p = 0.14), or hormone status (p = 0.90). In multivariate analysis, age (p = 0.61, OR 0.99), race (p = 0.58, OR 1.26), family history (p = 0.54, OR 0.82), breast density (p = 0.83, OR 0.87), grade (p = 0.87, OR 1.09), tumor size (p = 0.37, OR 0.92), and use of neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.41, OR 0.72) were not predictive of detection of additional new disease. Presence of positive nodes on ultrasound or mammogram was associated with new or multifocal disease on MRI (p = 0.0005, OR 3.48). Pre-MRI positive nodes increased the likelihood of detection of new disease (p = 0.0002, OR 3.04). Preoperative MRI resulted in more extensive surgery than indicated for 22.2% of the no new disease detected cohort and 6.9% of the new multicentric disease cohort (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nodal disease detected in their evaluation are more likely to have new multifocal, multicentric, or contralateral disease detected on MRI. The use of preoperative MRI may be particularly helpful in patients with node-positive disease in identifying additional disease that would alter surgical management.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

External Validation of the Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator (BCSRc): A Predictive Model for Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: The breast cancer surgical risk calculator (BCSRc) is a prognostic tool that determines a breast cancer patient's unique risk of acute complications following each possible surgical intervention. When used in the preoperative setting, it can help to stratify patients with an increased complication risk and enhance the patient-physician informed decision-making process. The objective of this study was to externally validate the four models used in the BCSRc on a large cohort of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The BCSRc was developed by using a retrospective cohort from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2018. Four models were built by using logistic regression methods to predict the following composite outcomes: overall, infectious, hematologic, and internal organ complications. This study obtained a new cohort of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program by utilizing participant user files from 2019 to 2020. The area under the curve, brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test measured model performance, accuracy, and calibration, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 192,095 patients met inclusion criteria in the development of the BCSRc, and the validation cohort included 60,144 women. The area under the curve during external validation for each model was approximately 0.70. Accuracy, or Brier scores, were all between 0.04 and 0.003. Model calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic found all p-values > 0.05. All of these model coefficients will be updated on the web-based BCSRc platform: www.breastcalc.org . CONCLUSIONS: The BCSRc continues to show excellent external-validation measures. Collectively, this prognostic tool can enhance the decision-making process, help stratify patients with an increased complication risk, and improve expectant management.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in the Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Literature.

INTRODUCTION: To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) among transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) studies and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search identified all TCAR-related studies with at least one American author published between January 2017 and December 2020. Industry payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior (24-mo period). Risk factors for COI discrepancy were evaluated at both the study and author level. RESULTS: A total of 79 studies (472 authors) were identified. Sixty four studies (81%) had at least one author who received payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. Fifty eight (73%) studies had at least one author who received an undeclared payment. Consulting fees represented the majority of general payment subtype (60%). Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($37,222 [interquartile range: $28,203-$132,589] versus $1748 [interquartile range $257-$35,041], P < 0.0001). Senior authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared to first authors (P = 0.0219). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of TCAR-related studies did not accurately declare COI. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of sponsorship on study recommendations or impact factor. This study highlights the need for increased efforts in accountability to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship, especially when consulting authors are reporting their results on patient outcomes.

A Novel Biosignature Identifies Patients With DCIS With High Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need to identify women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with a low risk of in-breast recurrence (IBR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS), which could omit radiation therapy (RT), and also to identify those with elevated IBR risk remaining after BCS plus RT. We evaluated a novel biosignature for a residual risk subtype (RRt) to help identify patients with elevated IBR risk after BCS plus RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women with DCIS treated with BCS with or without RT at centers in the US, Australia, and Sweden (n = 926) were evaluated. Patients were classified into 3 biosignature risk groups using the decision score (DS) and the RRt category: (1) Low Risk (DS ≤2.8 without RRt), (2) Elevated Risk (DS >2.8 without RRt), and (3) Residual Risk (DS >2.8 with RRt). Total and invasive IBR rates were assessed by risk group and treatment. RESULTS: In patients at low risk, there was no significant difference in IBR rates with or without RT (total, P = .8; invasive IBR, P = .7), and there were low overall 10-year rates (total, 5.1%; invasive, 2.7%). In patients with elevated risk, IBR rates were decreased with RT (total: hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.28; P = .005); 10-year rates were 20.6% versus 4.9% (total) and 10.9% versus 3.1% (invasive). In patients with residual risk, although IBR rates decreased with RT after BCS (total: HR, 0.21; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.29; P = .028), IBR rates remained significantly higher after RT compared with patients with elevated risk (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4; P = .018), with 10-year rates of 42.1% versus 14.7% (total) and 18.3% versus 6.5% (invasive). CONCLUSIONS: The novel biosignature identified patients with 3 distinct risk profiles: Low Risk patients with a low recurrence risk with or without adjuvant RT, Elevated Risk patients with excellent outcomes after BCS plus RT, and Residual Risk patients with an elevated recurrence risk remaining after BCS plus RT, warranting potential intensified or alternative treatment approaches.

Factors associated with initiation and continuation of endocrine therapy in women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite benefits of endocrine therapy (ET) for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, many patients do not initiate or discontinue ET against recommendations. METHODS: We identified variables associated with ET initiation and continuation, analyzing pooled data from two longitudinal studies at a National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center in St. Louis, Missouri. The sample included 533 women with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic, HR-positive breast cancer who completed interviews at enrollment and 6, 12, and 24 months after definitive surgical treatment. Logistic regression models estimated the adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (aOR [95% CI]) for each of self-reported ET initiation by the 12-month interview and continuation for ≥12 months by the 24-month interview in association with self-reported diabetes, elevated depressed mood, menopausal-symptom severity and obesity, adjusting for race, age, insurance status, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 81.4% (434/533) of patients initiated ET, and 86.5% (371/429) continued ET ≥12 months. Patients with diabetes had lower odds of initiating ET (0.50 [0.27-0.91]). Patients reporting greater menopausal-symptom severity had lower odds of continuing ET (0.72 [0.53-0.99]). CONCLUSION: Efforts to increase ET initiation among patients with diabetes and better manage severe menopausal symptoms among ET users might promote ET continuation. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : #NCT00929084.

Impact of consensus guidelines for breast-conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The goal of the guideline recommendation was standardization of re-excision practices. AIMS: To evaluate the impact of this consensus guideline on our institutional practices. METHODS: We identified all patients at our institution with pure DCIS who were initially treated with BCS from September 2014 to August 2018 using a prospectively-maintained institutional database. A retrospective chart review was performed to determine margin status and re-excision rates during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the guideline was published in order to determine the effect on our re-excision rates. Close margins were defined as <2 mm. RESULTS: In the 2 years before the consensus guideline was published, 184 patients with DCIS underwent BCS. Twenty-six patients had positive margins and 24 underwent re-excision, including three who had completion mastectomy. Of the remaining 159 patients, 76 had ≥2 mm (negative) margins. The remaining 82 patients had close margins and 48 of these patients (58.5%) underwent re-excision, including one who had a completion mastectomy. Excluding the patients with positive margins, our re-excision rate was 30.4% prior to the guideline. In the 2 years after the consensus guideline was published, 192 patients with DCIS underwent initial BCS. Twenty-four patients had positive margins and 22 underwent re-excision, including three who had completion mastectomy. Of the remaining 168 patients, 95 patients had ≥2 mm (negative) margins. The remaining 73 patients had close margins and 45 of those patients (61.6%) underwent re-excision, including six who had completion mastectomy. Excluding the patients with positive margins, our re-excision rate was 26.8% after the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution's re-excision rate did not change significantly during the 2 years before and after the publication of the consensus guideline on adequate margins for patients undergoing BCT for DCIS. Our overall re-excision rate decreased slightly. However, of the patients who had close margins, a larger proportion underwent re-excision after the guideline was published. The guideline publication appears to have affected our institutional practices slightly, but not dramatically as many of our surgeons' practices were comparable to the guideline recommendations prior to 2016. We continue to use clinical judgment based on patient and tumor characteristics in deciding which patients will benefit from margin re-excision.

Racial Disparities in Breast Reconstruction at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is an important component of breast cancer care that improves the quality of life in breast cancer survivors. African American women are less likely to receive breast reconstruction than Caucasian women. The purpose of this study was to further investigate the reconstruction disparities we previously reported at a comprehensive cancer center by assessing breast reconstruction rates, patterns, and predictors by race. METHODS: Data were obtained from women treated with definitive mastectomy between 2000 and 2012. Sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between African American and Caucasian women, and logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors of reconstruction by race. RESULTS: African American women had significantly larger proportions of public insurance, aggressive tumors, unilateral mastectomies, and modified radical mastectomies. African American women had a significantly lower reconstruction rate (35% vs. 49%, p < 0.01) and received a larger proportion of autologous reconstruction (13% vs. 7%, p < 0.01) compared to Caucasian women. The receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy was a significant predictor of breast reconstruction in Caucasian but not African American women. CONCLUSIONS: We identified breast reconstruction disparities in rate and type of reconstruction. These disparities may be due to racial differences in sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The predictors of breast reconstruction varied by race, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying breast reconstruction may vary in African American women. Future research should take a target approach to examine the relative contributions of sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment determinants of the breast reconstruction disparities in African American women.

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.

BACKGROUND: Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. METHODS: We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. RESULTS: We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017.

Radiation-Induced Brachial Plexopathy in Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Comprehensive Adjuvant Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to describe the risk of radiation-induced brachial plexopathy (RIBP) in patients with breast cancer who received comprehensive adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Records for 498 patients who received comprehensive adjuvant RT (treatment of any residual breast tissue, the underlying chest wall, and regional nodes) between 2004 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were treated with conventional 3 to 5 field technique (CRT) until 2008, after which intensity modulated RT (IMRT) was introduced. RIBP events were determined by reviewing follow-up documentation from oncologic care providers. Patients with RIBP were matched (1:2) with a control group of patients who received CRT and a group of patients who received IMRT. Dosimetric analyses were performed in these patients to determine whether there were differences in ipsilateral brachial plexus dose distribution between RIBP and control groups. RESULTS: Median study follow-up was 88 months for the overall cohort and 92 months for the IMRT cohort. RIBP occurred in 4 CRT patients (1.6%) and 1 IMRT patient (0.4%) (P = .20). All patients with RIBP in the CRT cohort received a posterior axillary boost. Maximum dose to the brachial plexus in RIBP, CRT control, and IMRT control patients had median values of 56.0 Gy (range, 49.7-65.1), 54.8 Gy (47.4-60.5), and 54.8 Gy (54.2-57.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RIBP remains a rare complication of comprehensive adjuvant breast radiation and no clear dosimetric predictors for RIBP were identified in this study. The IMRT technique does not appear to adversely affect the development of this late toxicity.