Incidence and Risk Assessment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Cancer Patients following Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy and Implant-Based Reconstruction.

Our study aims to identify the risk factors and dosimetry characteristics associated with capsular contracture. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 118 women with breast cancer who underwent PMRT following an IBR between 2010 and 2022. Patients were treated with PMRT of 50.0-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Capsular contracture was categorized according to the Baker Classification for Reconstructed Breasts. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 22 months, the incidence of clinically relevant capsular contracture (Baker III-IV) was 22.9%. Overall, capsular contracture (Baker I-IV) occurred in 56 patients (47.5%) after a median of 9 months after PMRT. The rate of reconstruction failure/implant loss was 25.4%. In the univariate analysis, postoperative complications (prolonged pain, prolonged wound healing, seroma and swelling) and regional nodal involvement were associated with higher rates of capsular contracture (p = 0.017, OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.3 and p = 0.031, respectively). None of the analyzed dosimetric factors or the implant position were associated with a higher risk for capsular contracture. CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications and regional nodal involvement were associated with an increased risk of capsular contracture following breast reconstruction and PMRT, while none of the analyzed dosimetric factors were linked to a higher incidence. Additional studies are needed to identify further potential risk factors.

Noninferiority of Local Control and Comparable Toxicity of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Breast Cancer: 5-Year Results of the IMRT-MC2 Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: The IMRT-MC2 trial was conducted to demonstrate the noninferiority of conventionally fractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost to 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with a sequential boost for adjuvant breast radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 502 patients were randomized between 2011 and 2015 for the prospective, multicenter, phase III trial (NCT01322854). Five-year results of late toxicity (late effects normal tissue task force-subjective, objective, management, and analytical), overall survival, disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, cosmesis (Harvard scale), and local control (noninferiority margin at hazard ratio [HR] of 3.5) were analyzed after a median follow-up of 62 months. RESULTS: The 5-year local control rate for the intensity modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost arm was non-inferior to the control arm (98.7% vs 98.3%, respectively; HR, 0.582; 95% CI, 0.119-2.375; P = .4595). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival (97.1% vs 98.3%, respectively; HR, 1.235; 95% CI, 0.472-3.413; P = .6697), disease-free survival (95.8% vs 96.1%, respectively; HR, 1.130; 95% CI, 0.487-2.679; P = .7758), and distant disease-free survival (97.0% vs 97.8%, respectively; HR, 1.667; 95% CI, 0.575-5.434; P = .3601). After 5 years, late toxicity evaluation and cosmetic assessment further showed no significant differences between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year results of the IMRT-MC2 trial provide strong evidence that the application of conventionally fractionated simultaneous integrated boost irradiation for patients with breast cancer is both safe and effective, with noninferior local control compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with sequential boost.

Palliative Radiotherapy for Symptomatic Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

Objective: Women with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) or inoperable local recurrence often suffer from a significantly reduced quality of life (QOL) due to local tumor-associated pain, bleeding, exulceration, or malodorous discharge. We aimed to further investigate the benefit of radiotherapy (RT) for symptom relief while weighing the side-effects. Materials and methods: Patients who received symptom-oriented RT for palliative therapy of their LABC or local recurrence in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Heidelberg University Hospital between 2012 and 2021 were recorded. Clinical, pathological, and therapeutic data were collected and the oncological and symptomatic responses as well as therapy-associated toxicities were analyzed. Results: We retrospectively identified 26 consecutive women who received palliative RT with a median total dose of 39 Gy or single dose of 3 Gy in 13 fractions due to (impending) exulceration, pain, local hemorrhage, and/or vascular or plexus compression. With a median follow-up of 6.5 months after initiation of RT, overall survival at 6 and 12 months was 60.0% and 31.7%, and local control was 75.0% and 47.6%, respectively. Radiation had to be discontinued in 4 patients due to oncological clinical deterioration or death. When completed as initially planned, symptom improvement was achieved in 95% and WHO level reduction of analgesics in 28.6% of patients. In 36% (16%) of patients, local RT had already been indicated >3 months (>6 months) before the actual start of RT, but was delayed or not initiated among others in favor of drug alternatives or systemic therapies. RT-associated toxicities included only low-grade side-effects (CTCAE I°-II°) with predominantly skin erythema and fatigue even in the context of re-RT. Conclusion: Palliative RT in symptomatic LABC or locoregional recurrence is an effective treatment option for controlling local symptoms with only mild toxicity. It may thus improve QOL and should be considered early in palliative patient care management.

Stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiotherapy of adrenal metastases combines high ablative doses with optimized sparing of organs at risk.

Purpose/Objective: To evaluate the potential of stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) to fulfill dose recommendations for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of adrenal metastases and spare organs at risk (OAR). Materials and methods: In this subgroup analysis of a prospective registry trial, 22 patients with adrenal metastases were treated on a 0.35 T MR-Linac in 5-12 fractions with fraction doses of 4-10 Gy. Baseline plans were re-calculated to the anatomy of the day. These predicted plans were reoptimized to generate adapted plans. Baseline, predicted and adapted plans were compared with regard to PTV objectives, OAR constraints and published dose recommendations. Results: The cohort comprised patients with large GTV (median 36.0 cc) and PTV (median 66.6 cc) and predominantly left-sided metastases. 179 of 181 fractions (98.9 %) were adapted because of PTV and/or OAR violations. Predicted plans frequently violated PTV coverage (99.4 %) and adjacent OAR constraints (bowel: 32.9 %, stomach: 32.8 %, duodenum: 10.4 %, kidneys: 10.8 %). In the predicted plans, the volume exposed to the maximum dose was exceeded up to 16-fold in the duodenum and up to 96-fold in the spinal cord. Adapted plans significantly reduced OAR violations by 96.4 % for the bowel, 98.5 % for the stomach, 85.6 % for the duodenum and 83.3 % for the kidneys. Plan adaptation improved PTV coverage from 82.7 ± 8.1 % to 90.6 ± 4.9 % (p < 0.001). Furthermore, recently established target volume thresholds could easily be fulfilled with SMART. No toxicities > grade II occurred. Conclusion: SMART fulfills established GTV and PTV dose recommendations while simultaneously sparing organs at risk even in a challenging cohort.

Treatment Tolerability and Toxicity of Postoperative Proton Beam Therapy for Gynecologic Malignancies: Results of the Prospective Phase 2 APROVE Trial.

PURPOSE: The APROVE study is a prospective one-arm phase-2 study investigating the safety and treatment tolerability of postoperative proton beam therapy in women with uterine cervical or endometrial cancer. In this analysis, we report the primary study endpoint of safety and treatment tolerability as well as toxicity rates and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: 25 patients were treated with postoperative proton beam therapy with a total dose of 45 to 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 5 to 6 × 1.8 Gy (RBE) fractions weekly using active raster-scanning intensity modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT). Sequential or simultaneous platinum-based chemotherapy was administered if indicated. The primary endpoint was defined as the lack of any acute ≥grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) or urogenital (GU) toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.0 or premature treatment abortion. Secondary endpoints were clinical symptoms and toxicity, quality of life, and PFS. RESULTS: All patients completed IMPT according to the protocol, with a median treatment duration of 43 days (range, 33 to 51 days). No patient developed gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity ≥grade 3, and the treatment tolerability rate was 100%. Therefore, the null hypothesis H0: Tolerability Rate ≤80% could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis H1: Tolerability rate >80% using an exact binomial test with a one-sided significance level of α = 10% (one-sided P value P = .0059). The median follow-up time after the end of IMPT was 25.1 months (range, 20.2 to 50.3 months). 18 of 25 (75%) patients completed the study follow-up of 24 months. 7 patients had progressive disease. Kaplan-Meier-estimated mean PFS was 39.9 months (95% confidence interval: 33.37 to 46.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative IMPT is a safe treatment option for cervical and endometrial cancer patients, with only low-grade acute and late toxicities. Larger randomized trials are necessary to further assess the potential of IMPT and improve patient selection.

Health-related quality of life and patient-reported symptoms after postoperative proton beam radiotherapy of cervical and endometrial cancer: 2-year results of the prospective phase II APROVE-trial.

INTRODUCTION: The APROVE-trial investigated the tolerability of postoperative proton beam therapy in women with cervical or endometrial cancer. The present analysis evaluated the secondary endpoints of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-reported symptoms. METHODS: 25 patients were included in this prospective phase-II-trial and treated with postoperative radiotherapy using protons alone or in combination with chemotherapy. To attain general and gynecologic-specific HRQOL measures, the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires combined with -QLQ-CX24 for cervical and -QLQ-EN24 for endometrial cancer were assessed at baseline, at the end of RT and up to 2 years after radiotherapy. The results were compared to an age-matched norm reference population. Symptoms were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and institutional patient-reported symptoms grading. RESULTS: Scores regarding global health status were markedly impaired at baseline (mean: 58.0 ± 20.1) compared to reference population data, but significantly (p = 0.036) improved and evened out to comparable norm values 2 years after proton therapy (mean: 69.9 ± 19.3). Treatment caused acute and long-term worsening of pain (p = 0.048) and gastrointestinal symptoms (p = 0.016) for women with endometrial cancer, but no higher-grade CTCAE ≥ 3° toxicity was observed. Dosimetric evaluation of rectum, sigmoid, large and small bowel showed no correlation with the reported gastrointestinal symptoms. After 2 years, fatigue had significantly improved (p = 0.030), whereas patients with cervical cancer experienced more often lymphedema (p = 0.017). Scores for endometrial cancer pertaining to sexual activity (p = 0.048) and body image (p = 0.022) had improved post treatment; in the latter this effect persisted after 2 years. CONCLUSION: Proton beam therapy in the adjuvant setting was well tolerated with only low-grade side effects concerning gastrointestinal symptoms, lymphedema and pain. Overall quality of life was impaired at baseline, but patients were able to recover to values comparable to norm population 2 years after proton therapy. Larger studies are needed to confirm whether the benefit of proton therapy translates into a clinical effect. Sexual dysfunction remains an important issue. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03184350, 09th June 2017).

Dosimetric Benefit of Adaptive Magnetic Resonance-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Liver Metastases.

(1) Background: To assess dosimetry benefits of stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) of liver metastases. (2) Methods: This is a subgroup analysis of an ongoing prospective registry including patients with liver metastases. Patients were treated at the MRIdian Linac between February 2020 and April 2022. The baseline plan was recalculated based on the updated anatomy of the day to generate the predicted plan. This predicted plan could then be re-optimized to create an adapted plan. (3) Results: Twenty-three patients received 30 SMART treatment series of in total 36 liver metastases. Most common primary tumors were colorectal- and pancreatic carcinoma (26.1% respectively). Most frequent fractionation scheme (46.6%) was 50 Gy in five fractions. The adapted plan was significantly superior compared to the predicted plan in regard to planning-target-volume (PTV) coverage, PTV overdosing, and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose constraints violations (91.5 vs. 38.0%, 6 vs. 19% and 0.6 vs. 10.0%; each p < 0.001). Plan adaptation significantly increased median BEDD95 by 3.2 Gy (p < 0.001). Mean total duration of SMART was 72.4 min. (4) Conclusions: SMART offers individualized ablative irradiation of liver metastases tailored to the daily anatomy with significant superior tumor coverage and improved sparing of OAR.

Methods of Esthetic Assessment after Adjuvant Whole-Breast Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: Evaluation of the BCCT.core Software and Patients' and Physicians' Assessment from the Randomized IMRT-MC2 Trial.

The present analysis compares the esthetics assessment by the BCCT.core software in relation to patients' and physicians' ratings, based on the IMRT-MC2 trial. Within this trial, breast cancer patients received breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiotherapy. At the baseline, 6 weeks, and 2 years after radiotherapy, photos of the breasts were assessed by the software and patients' and physicians' assessments were performed. Agreement rates of the assessments and their correlation with breast asymmetry indices were evaluated. The assessments of the software and the physicians were significantly correlated with asymmetry indices. Before and 6 weeks after radiotherapy, the patients' self-assessment was only correlated with the lower breast contour (LBC) and upward nipple retraction (UNR), while after 2 years, there was also a correlation with other indices. Only a slight agreement between the BCCT.core software and the physicians' or patients' assessment was seen, while a moderate and substantial agreement was detected between the physicians' and the patients' assessment after 6 weeks and 2 years, respectively. The BCCT.core software is a reliable tool to measure asymmetries, but may not sufficiently evaluate the esthetic outcome as perceived by patients. It may be more appropriate for a long-term follow-up, when symmetry appears to increase in importance.

Quality of life after simultaneously integrated boost with intensity-modulated versus conventional radiotherapy with sequential boost for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: 2-year results of the multicenter randomized IMRT-MC2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We recently published 2-year results of the prospective, randomized IMRT-MC2 trial, showing non-inferior local control and cosmesis in breast cancer patients after conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with simultaneously integrated boost (IMRT-SIB), compared to 3D-conformal radiotherapy with sequential boost (3D-CRT-seqB). Here, we report on 2-year quality of life results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 502 patients were enrolled and randomized to IMRT-SIB (50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions with a 64.4 Gy SIB to the tumor bed) or to 3D-CRT-seqB (50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions, followed by a sequential boost of 16 Gy in 2 Gy fractions). For quality of life (QoL) assessment, patients completed the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks and 2 years after radiotherapy. RESULTS: Significant differences between treatment arms were seen 6 weeks after radiotherapy for pain (22.3 points for IMRT vs. 27.0 points for 3D-CRT-seqB; p = 0.033) and arm symptoms (18.1 points for IMRT vs. 23.6 points for 3D-CRT-seqB; p = 0.013), both favoring IMRT-SIB. Compared to baseline values, both arms showed significant improvement in global score (IMRT: p = 0.009; 3D-CRT: p = 0.001) after 2 years, with slight deterioration on the role (IMRT: p = 0.008; 3-D-CRT: p = 0.001) and social functioning (IMRT: p = 0.013, 3D-CRT: p = 0.001) as well as the future perspectives scale (IMRT: p = 0.003; 3D-CRT: p = 0.0034). CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized phase III trial demonstrating that IMRT-SIB was associated with slightly superior QoL compared to 3-D-CRT-seqB. These findings further support the clinical implementation of SIB in adjuvant breast cancer treatment.

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) With Simultaneously Integrated Boost Shortens Treatment Time and Is Noninferior to Conventional Radiation Therapy Followed by Sequential Boost in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment: Results of a Large Randomized Phase III Trial (IMRT-MC2 Trial).

PURPOSE: In the modern era, improvements in radiation therapy techniques have paved the way for simultaneous integrated boost irradiation in adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast conservation surgery. Nevertheless, randomized trials supporting the noninferiority of this treatment to historical standards of care approach are lacking. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial (NCT01322854) was performed to analyze noninferiority of conventional fractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) to 3-D conformal radiation therapy with sequential boost (3-D-CRT-seqB) for breast cancer patients. Primary outcomes were local control (LC) rates at 2 and 5 years (noninferiority margin at hazard ratio [HR] of 3.5) as well as cosmetic results 6 weeks and 2 years after radiation therapy (evaluated via photo documentation calculating the relative breast retraction assessment [pBRA] score [noninferiority margin of 1.25]). RESULTS: A total of 502 patients were randomly assigned from 2011 to 2015. After a median follow-up of 5.1 years, the 2-year LC for the IMRT-SIB arm was noninferior to the 3-D-CRT-seqB arm (99.6% vs 99.6%, respectively; HR, 0.602; 95% CI, 0.123-2.452; P = .487). In addition, noninferiority was also shown for cosmesis after IMRT-SIB and 3-D-CRT-seqB at both 6 weeks (median pBRA, 9.1% vs 9.1%) and 2 years (median pBRA, 10.4% vs 9.8%) after radiation therapy (95% CI, -0.317 to 0.107 %; P = .332). Cosmetic assessment according to the Harvard scale by both the patient and the treating physician as well as late-toxicity evaluation with the late effects normal tissues- subjective, objective, management, analytic criteria, a score for the evaluation of long-term adverse effects in normal tissue, revealed no significant differences between treatment arms. In addition, there was no difference in overall survival rates (99.6% vs 99.6%; HR, 3.281; 95% CI: -0.748 to 22.585; P = .148) for IMRT-SIB and 3-D-CRT-seqB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective trial reporting the noninferiority of IMRT-SIB versus 3-D-CRT-seqB with respect to cosmesis and LC at 2 years of follow-up. This treatment regimen considerably shortens adjuvant radiation therapy times without compromising clinical outcomes.

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Male Breast Cancer-A Rare Indication?

Due to its rarity, there are no randomized trials investigating the outcome of adjuvant radiotherapy in MBC. This study reports on patient and tumor characteristics of 41 consecutive MBC patients treated between 1990 and 2018 and on clinical outcomes after surgical resection of tumors and adjuvant radiotherapy of the chest wall or breast. Local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicity were evaluated. After a median follow-up of 80 months (95% CI: 14.6-213.8 months) there was only one recurrence, in a patient's locoregional lymph nodes 17 months after start of radiotherapy, resulting in an LC rate of 100% at 5 years and a 5-year LRC rate of 97.4% (standard deviation (SD): 0.025). Five-year DFS and OS rates were 64.6% (SD: 0.085) and 57.2% (SD: 0.082), respectively. Adjuvant radiotherapy was tolerated well without high-grade (CTCAE grade > II) adverse events. After tumor resection and adjuvant radiotherapy, LC and LRC rates in MBC patients are excellent and comparable to results found for female breast cancer (FBC) patients. However, as patients are often diagnosed with locally advanced, higher-risk tumors, distant recurrences remain the major failure pattern.

Validation of Nine Different Prognostic Grading Indexes for Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients and Development of an All-Encompassing Prognostic Tool.

Purpose: Several prognostic indexes for overall survival (OS) after radiotherapy of brain metastases in breast cancer patients exist but are mainly validated for whole-brain radiotherapy or not specifically for breast cancer patients. To date, no such index provides information beyond mere OS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 95 breast cancer patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery for 203 brain metastases. The Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test was used to assess OS, local control (LC), distant cranial control (DCC), and extracranial control (EC). Cox regression was applied to detect prognostic outcome factors. A point scoring system was designed to stratify patients based on outcome. Nine established prognostic indexes were analyzed using the concordance index (c-index). Results: Two out of nine analyzed prognostic indexes for OS showed a significant c-index, the breast graded prognostic assessment (bGPA; 0.631; 95% CI, 0.514-0.748; p = 0.037) and the modified bGPA (mod-bGPA; 0.662; 95% CI, 0.547-0.777; p = 0.010). Significant results from multivariate analysis (Karnofsky Performance Score, Her2/neu receptor status, extracranial control) were used to generate a new point system: the breast cancer stereotactic radiotherapy score (bSRS), which discriminated three significantly different prognostic groups, for LC, DCC, EC, and OS, respectively. However, the c-index was only significant for OS (0.689; 95% CI, 0.577-0.802; p = 0.003). Conclusions: The new bSRS score was superior to the bGPA and mod-bGPA scores for prognosis of OS. The bSRS is easy to use and the first tool, which might also provide outcome assessment beyond mere OS. Future studies need to validate these findings.

Acute toxicity of normofractionated intensity modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with sequential boost in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improves dose homogeneity and late toxicity compared to simple tangential techniques in adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy for patients with breast cancer. Simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) radiotherapy shortens the overall treatment time and improves dose homogeneity. However, prospective randomized trials regarding IMRT with SIB for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer are lacking. METHODS: The IMRT-MC2 (MINT) trial is a phase III prospective randomized controlled trial comparing IMRT with SIB (Arm A: whole breast 28 × 1.8 Gy, Boost 28 × 2.3 Gy) to 3D-conformal radiotherapy with a sequential boost (Arm B: whole breast 28 × 1.8 Gy, boost 8 × 2 Gy) in patients with breast cancer after BCS. Indication for boost radiotherapy was defined as age < 70 years or age > 70 years with presence of additional risk factors. This is a retrospective analysis of acute toxicity at one of two trial sites. RESULTS: Five hundred two patients were randomized, of which 446 patients were eligible for this analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of any grade radiation dermatitis between the two treatment arms at the end of treatment (p = 0.26). However, radiation dermatitis grade 2/3 (29.1% vs. 20.1 and 3.5% vs. 2.3%) occurred significantly more often in Arm A (p = 0.02). Breast/chest wall pain at the first follow-up visit was significantly more common in patients treated on Arm B (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment on both arms was well tolerated, however there were some differences regarding radiodermatitis and breast pain. Further analyses are ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01322854 , registered 24th March 2011.

Extracranial Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Oligometastatic or Oligoprogressive Breast Cancer.

Purpose/Objective: Oligometastatic disease (OMD) and oligoprogressive disease (OPD) describe tumor states with a limited metastasization. In contrast to other disease states, treatment of OMD or OPD has not yet become common for breast cancer. We sought to understand the outcomes and toxicities of this treatment paradigm. Material/Methods: We retrospectively analyzed female breast cancer patients with OMD (≤3 metastases) or OPD (1 progressive lesion) who received stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for their respective extracranial metastatic lesions between 01/2002 and 07/2019. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test being used for evaluation of significance. Cox regression was used to detect prognostic outcome factors. Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 5.0). Results: Forty-six patients (70% OMD; 30% OPD) with 58 lesions met criteria for inclusion. The majority of treatments (34 out of 58; 58.6%) were delivered from 2017 to 2018. Treatment sites were bone, liver, lung [n = 19 (33%) for each site], and adrenal gland [n = 1 (1%)]. Median biologically effective dose (BED at α/ß = 10) was 81.6 Gy (range: 45-112.5 Gy) and median planning target volume was 36.60 mL (range: 3.76-311.00 mL). At 2 years, local control (LC) was 89%, distant control (DC) was 44%, progression free survival (PFS) was 17% and overall survival (OS) was 62%. Multivariate analysis identified the diagnosis of a solitary metastasis as an independent prognostic factor for superior DC (HR = 0.186, CI [0.055; 0.626], p = 0.007) and PFS (HR = 0.363, CI [0.152; 0.863], p = 0.022). OS was independently inferior for patients treated at a higher age (HR = 5.788, CI [1.077; 31.119] p = 0.041). Nine (15.5%) grade I° and one (1.7%) grade II° toxicities were recorded, with no grade III° or higher toxicities. Conclusion: Extracranial SBRT in breast cancer patients with OMD or OPD was well-tolerated with excellent LC. SBRT should especially be offered to younger OMD and OPD breast cancer patients with only one metastasis. The increase in utilization since 2017 points toward a growing acceptance of SBRT for OMD and OPD in breast cancer.

Stereotactic Cavity Irradiation or Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Following Brain Metastases Resection-Outcome, Prognostic Factors, and Recurrence Patterns.

Introduction: Following the resection of brain metastases (BM), whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a long-established standard of care. Its position was recently challenged by the less toxic single-session radiosurgery (SRS) or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) of the resection cavity, reducing dose exposure of the healthy brain. Patients and Methods: We analyzed 101 patients treated with either SRS/FSRT (n = 50) or WBRT (n = 51) following BM resection over a 5-year period. Propensity score adjustment was done for age, total number of BM, timepoint of BM diagnosis, controlled primary and extracranial metastases. A Cox Proportional Hazards model with univariate and multivariate analysis was fitted for overall survival (OS), local control (LC) and distant brain control (DBC). Results: Median patient age was 61 (interquartile range, IQR: 56-67) years and the most common histology was non-small cell lung cancer, followed by breast cancer. 38% of the patients had additional unresected BM. Twenty-four patients received SRS, 26 patients received FSRT and 51 patients received WBRT. Median OS in the SRS/FSRT subgroup was not reached (IQR NA-16.7 months) vs. 12.6 months (IQR 21.3-4.4) in the WBRT subgroup (hazard ratio, HR 3.3, 95%-CI: [1.5; 7.2] p < 0.002). Twelve-months LC-probability was 94.9% (95%-CI: [88.3; 100.0]) in the SRS subgroup vs. 81.7% (95%-CI: [66.6; 100.0]) in the WBRT subgroup (HR 0.2, 95%-CI: [0.01; 0.9] p = 0.037). Twelve-months DBC-probabilities were 65.0% (95%-CI: [50.8; 83.0]) and 58.8% (95%-CI: [42.9; 80.7]), respectively (HR 1.4, 95%-CI: [0.7; 2.7] p = 0.401). In propensity score-adjusted multivariate analysis, incomplete resection negatively impacted OS (HR 3.9, 95%-CI: [2.0;7.4], p < 0.001) and LC (HR 5.4, 95%-CI: [1.3; 21.9], p = 0.018). Excellent clinical performance (HR 0.4, 95%-CI: [0.2; 0.9], p = 0.030) and better graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score (HR 0.4, 95%-CI: [0.2; 1.0], p = 0.040) were prognostic of superior OS. A higher number of BM was associated with a greater risk of developing new distant BM (HR 5.6, 95%-CI: [1.0; 30.4], p = 0.048). In subgroup analysis, larger cavity volume (HR 1.1, 95%-CI: [1.0; 1.3], p = 0.033) and incomplete resection (HR 12.0, 95%-CI: [1.2; 118.3], p = 0.033) were associated with inferior LC following SRS/FSRT. Conclusion: This is the first propensity score-adjusted direct comparison of SRS/FSRT and WBRT following the resection of BM. Patients receiving SRS/FSRT showed longer OS and LC compared to WBRT. Future analyses will address the optimal choice of safety margin, dose and fractionation for postoperative stereotactic RT of the resection cavity.

Fatigue following radiotherapy of low-risk early breast cancer - a randomized controlled trial of intraoperative electron radiotherapy versus standard hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy: the COSMOPOLITAN trial (NCT03838419).

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the most common and distressing side-effects of breast cancer radiotherapy. According to current guidelines, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) may be considered as an alternative treatment option for women with early-stage low-risk breast cancer. One method for APBI is single-dose intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) applied directly to the tumor bed during breast conserving surgery (BCS). The COSMOPOLITAN trial therefore aims to analyze the intensity of fatigue following single-shot IORT with electrons (IOERT) compared to conventional hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) in low risk early breast cancer patients. METHODS: This trial is conducted as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm phase II study comparing the intensity of fatigue in early-stage breast cancer (cT1cN0cM0, tumor size < 2,5 cm, ER pos. Her2neu neg., age > 50 years) treated either with WBI or APBI after BCS. Secondary outcomes investigated are tumor control, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), acute and chronic toxicity, quality of life (QoL) and cosmesis. A total of 202 patients will be randomized into two arms: Patients in arm A will receive WBI (40.05 Gy, 15 fractions) after surgical resection, while patients in arm B will receive IOERT (21 Gy to the 90%-isodose) during BCS. Fatigue will be assessed 12 weeks post surgery with the help of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue Scale. DISCUSSION: The present trial aims to evaluate treatment response to compare single-shot intraoperative electron APBI to conventional WBI following BCS in early-stage low risk breast cancer patients. Fatigue is selected as the primary, patient-reported endpoint due its major clinical relevance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is prospectively registered on February 12th, 2019: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03838419. "Intraoperative Electron Radiotherapy for Low-risk Early Breast Cancer (COSMOPOLITAN)". STUDY STATUS: Ongoing study. Start of recruitment was December 2019.

Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation: A New Standard of Care?

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving therapy including lumpectomy and adjuvant whole breast irradiation (WBI) has become the standard therapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Without WBI, the recurrence rate is significantly increased. However, when selecting patients at a low a priori risk of local recurrence only a small breast-cancer-specific mortality benefit, but no overall survival improvement, was detected for WBI. As most recurrences occur close to the lumpectomy cavity, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) delivered exclusively to a limited volume of tissue around the initial lumpectomy site, has gained increased attention and is now discussed as an alternative to WBI for selected EBC patients. SUMMARY: Numerous techniques for APBI (interstitial brachytherapy, external beam-based APBI, intraoperative radiotherapy, MR-guided radiotherapy) allow treatment delivery in a shorter period of time, and radiation oncologists expect to further reduce side effects by using these new techniques, with improvements in cosmetics and quality of life. In this review, we aim to describe the existing evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of different APBI techniques used in modern radiotherapy. KEY MESSAGES: APBI has provided outcomes similar to WBI combined with potentially reduced toxicity. While appropriate patient selection persists to be crucial for acceptable recurrence rates, the precise definition of patients suitable for APBI remains a matter of discussion. As long-term data are often still lacking, special attention should be paid to late side effects and long-term outcomes. Decision-making on appropriate treatment techniques should take into account not only local control rates, but also the impact on the patient's quality of life.

Single-Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. CyberKnife M6 for the Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases.

Introduction: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is becoming more frequently used for patients with multiple brain metastases (BMs). Single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (SI-VMAT) is an emerging alternative to dedicated systems such as CyberKnife (CK). We present a dosimetric comparison between CyberKnife M6 and SI-VMAT, planned at RayStation V8B, for the simultaneous SRS of five or more BM. Patients and Methods: Twenty treatment plans of CK-based single-session SRS to ≥5 brain metastases were replanned using SI-VMAT for delivery at an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator. Prescription dose was 20 or 18 Gy, conformally enclosing at least 98% of the total planning target volume (PTV), with PTV margin-width adapted to the respective SRS technique. Comparatively analyzed quality metrics included dose distribution to the healthy brain (HB), including different isodose volumes, conformity, and gradient indices. Estimated treatment time was also compared. Results: Median HB isodose volumes for 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 Gy were consistently smaller for CK-SRS compared to SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). Dose falloff outside the target volume, as expressed by the gradient indices GI_high and GI_low, was consistently steeper for CK-SRS compared to SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). CK-SRS achieved a median GI_high of 3.1 [interquartile range (IQR), 2.9-1.3] vs. 5.0 (IQR 4.3-5.5) for SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). For GI_low, the results were 3.0 (IQR, 2.9-3.1) for CK-SRS vs. 5.6 (IQR, 4.3-5.5) for SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). The median conformity index (CI) was 1.2 (IQR, 1.1-1.2) for CK-SRS vs. 1.5 (IQR, 1.4-1.7) for SI-VMAT (p < 0.001). Estimated treatment time was shorter for SI-VMAT, yielding a median of 13.7 min (IQR, 13.5-14.0) compared to 130 min (IQR, 114.5-154.5) for CK-SRS (p < 0.001). Conclusion: SI-VMAT offers enhanced treatment efficiency in cases with multiple BM, as compared to CyberKnife, but requires compromise regarding conformity and integral dose to the healthy brain. Additionally, delivery at a conventional linear accelerator (linac) may require a larger PTV margin to account for delivery and setup errors. Further evaluations are warranted to determine whether the detected dosimetric differences are clinically relevant. SI-VMAT could be a reasonable alternative to a dedicated radiosurgery system for selected patients with multiple BM.

A matched-pair analysis comparing stereotactic radiosurgery with whole-brain radiotherapy for patients with multiple brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an emerging treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases (BM). The present work compares the SRS of multiple brain metastases with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). METHODS: We performed a matched-pair analysis for 128 patients with multiple BM treated with either SRS or WBRT over a 5-year period. Patients were matched pairwise for seven potential prognostic factors. A mixed Cox Proportional Hazards model with univariate and multivariate analysis was fitted for overall survival (OS). Distant intracranial progression-free survival (icPFS) and local control were assessed using a Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model and considering death as competing event. RESULTS: Patients undergoing SRS had a median of 4 BM (range 3-16). 1-year local control of individual BM following SRS was 91.7%. Median OS in the SRS subgroup was 15.7 months (IQR 9.7-36.4) versus 8.0 months (interquartile range, IQR 3.8-18.0) in the WBRT subgroup (HR 2.25, 95% CI [1.5; 3.5], p < 0.001). Median icPFS was 8.6 (IQR 3.4-18.0) versus 22.4 (IQR 5.6-28.6) months, respectively (HR for WBRT 0.41, 95% CI [0.24; 0.71], p = 0.001). Following SRS, synchronous BM diagnosis (HR 2.51, 95% CI [1.30; 4.70], p = 0.004), higher initial number of BM (HR 1.21, 95% CI [1.10; 1.40], p = 0.002) and lung cancer histology (HR 2.05, 95% CI [1.10; 3.80], p = 0.024) negatively impacted survival. Excellent clinical performance (KPI 90%) was a positive prognosticator (HR 0.38, 95% CI [0.20; 0.72], p = 0.003), as was extracerebral tumor control (HR 0.48, 95% CI [0.24; 0.97], p = 0.040). Higher initial (HR 1.19, 95% CI [1.00; 1.40], p < 0.013) and total number of BM (HR 1.23, 95% CI [1.10; 1.40], p < 0.001) were prognostic for shorter icPFS. CONCLUSION: This is the first matched-pair analysis to compare SRS alone versus WBRT alone for multiple BM. OS was prolonged in the SRS subgroup and generally favorable in the entire cohort. Our results suggest SRS as a feasible and effective treatment for patients with multiple BM.

Cetuximab in Pancreatic Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The present study evaluated the potential benefit of adding cetuximab to neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or palliative standard therapy for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of adding cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer were included. Evaluated outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. For overall survival and progression-free survival, hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were chosen as effect measure. For objective response, odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were used. Analysis was based on a random effects model. RESULTS: After screening 568 publications, a total of 4 RCTs with 924 patients were included. In all trials, patients were adequately randomised with balanced intervention and control groups. There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.19; p = 0.60), progression-free survival (HR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.93-1.22; p = 0.36), or objective response (OR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.66 -1.49; p = 0.96) when adding cetuximab to a standard therapy. Toxicity was the same or higher in each of the included trials. According to GRADE, the certainty of the evidence is high. Therefore, adding cetuximab to pancreatic cancer therapy has no clinically relevant benefit. CONCLUSION: In the presence of no survival benefit, increased toxicity, and higher costs, a decreased cost-benefit ratio compared to the standard care must be suggested. Conducting further RCTs in unselected pancreatic cancer populations is unlikely to change this conclusion.