De-escalation of axillary treatment in the event of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy: nationwide registry study (BOOG 2013-07).

BACKGROUND: Trials have demonstrated the safety of omitting completion axillary lymph node dissection in patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer operated with breast-conserving surgery who have limited metastatic burden in the sentinel lymph node. The aim of this registry study was to provide insight into the oncological safety of omitting completion axillary treatment in patients operated with mastectomy who have limited-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis. METHODS: Women diagnosed in 2013-2014 with unilateral cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with one to three sentinel lymph node metastases (pN1mi-pN1a), were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and classified by axillary treatment: no completion axillary treatment, completion axillary lymph node dissection, regional radiotherapy, or completion axillary lymph node dissection followed by regional radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year regional recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free interval and overall survival, among others. RESULTS: In total, 1090 patients were included (no completion axillary treatment, 219 (20.1%); completion axillary lymph node dissection, 437 (40.1%); regional radiotherapy, 327 (30.0%); completion axillary lymph node dissection and regional radiotherapy, 107 (9.8%)). Patients in the group without completion axillary treatment had more favourable tumour characteristics and were older. The overall 5-year regional recurrence rate was 1.3%, and did not differ significantly between the groups. The recurrence-free interval was also comparable among groups. The group of patients who did not undergo completion axillary treatment had statistically significantly worse 5-year overall survival, owing to a higher percentage of non-cancer deaths. CONCLUSION: In this registry study of patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with low-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis, the 5-year regional recurrence rate was low and comparable between patients with and without completion axillary treatment.

Essential requirements for reporting radiation therapy in breast cancer clinical trials: An international multi-disciplinary consensus endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO).

The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) has advocated the establishment of guidelines to optimise precision radiotherapy (RT) in conjunction with contemporary therapeutics for cancer care. Quality assurance in RT (QART) plays a pivotal role in influencing treatment outcomes. Clinical trials incorporating QART protocols have demonstrated improved survival rates with minimal associated toxicity. Nonetheless, in routine clinical practice, there can be variability in the indications for RT, dosage, fractionation, and treatment planning, leading to uncertainty. In pivotal trials reporting outcomes of systemic therapy for breast cancer, there is limited information available regarding RT, and the potential interaction between modern systemic therapy and RT remains largely uncharted. This article is grounded in a consensus recommendation endorsed by ESTRO, formulated by international breast cancer experts. The consensus was reached through a modified Delphi process and was presented at an international meeting convened in Florence, Italy, in June 2023. These recommendations are regarded as both optimal and essential standards, with the latter aiming to define the minimum requirements. A template for a case report form (CRF) has been devised, which can be utilised by all clinical breast cancer trials involving RT. Optimal requirements include adherence to predefined RT planning protocols and centralised QART. Essential requirements aim to reduce variations and deviations from the guidelines in RT, even when RT is not the primary focus of the trial. These recommendations underscore the significance of implementing these practices in both clinical trials and daily clinical routines to generate high-quality data.

De-ESCAlating RadioTherapy in breast cancer patients with pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy: DESCARTES study.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is increasingly used in breast cancer patients and depending on subtype, 10-89% of patients will attain pathologic complete response (pCR). In patients with pCR, risk of local recurrence (LR) after breast conserving therapy is low. Although adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (BCS) reduces LR further in these patients, it may not contribute to overall survival. However, radiotherapy may cause early and late toxicity. The aim of this study is to show that omission of adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with a pCR after NST will result in acceptable low LR rates and good quality of life. METHODS: The DESCARTES study is a prospective, multicenter, single arm study. Radiotherapy will be omitted in cT1-2N0 patients (all subtypes) who achieve a pCR of the breast and lymph nodes after NST followed by BCS plus sentinel node procedure. A pCR is defined as ypT0N0 (i.e. no residual tumor cells detected). Primary endpoint is the 5-year LR rate, which is expected to be 4% and deemed acceptable if less than 6%. In total, 595 patients are needed to achieve a power of 80% (one-side alpha of 0.05). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, Cancer Worry Scale, disease specific and overall survival. Projected accrual is five years. CONCLUSION: This study bridges the knowledge gap regarding LR rates when adjuvant radiotherapy is omitted in cT1-2N0 patients achieving pCR after NST. If the results are positive, radiotherapy may be safely omitted in selected breast cancer patients with a pCR after NST. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 13th 2022 (NCT05416164). Protocol version 5.1 (15-03-2022).

Regional radiotherapy after primary systemic treatment for cN+ breast cancer patients.

Pathologic complete response (pCR) after Primary Systemic Treatment (PST) for breast cancer is associated with excellent long-term outcomes. With increasing use of PST, the indication for regional nodal irradiation (RNI) has been challenged. The aim of this paper is to review the literature on de-escalation of RNI in patients treated with PST. We found no level 1 evidence on de-escalation of RNI after PST, but several randomized trials are ongoing. Consequently, current de-escalation strategies are based on cohort studies. These studies showed that in patients with low nodal tumour burden (LNTB) (≤3 suspicious nodes at imaging) prior to PST, and ypN0 based on Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND), omission of RNI resulted in very low regional recurrences (RR) without compromising survival. In patients with LNTB and ypN0 based on Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB), omission of axillary treatment also resulted in low RR; the majority of these patients received local radiotherapy. Similarly, in patients with ypN1 (ALND) disease, omission of RNI resulted in low 5-year RR rates. Low RR-rates were also found in the few studies replacing ALND by RNI, in patients with ypN1 (SLNB) disease. In patients with high nodal tumour burden prior to PST and ypN0 (SLNB), replacing ALND by RNI also resulted in low RR. Due to the limited number of patients, these data should be interpreted with caution. We conclude that although level 1 evidence is lacking, de-escalation of RNI after PST can be considered in selected cases.

Cosmetic Results and Side Effects of Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation Versus Whole-Breast Irradiation for Low-Risk Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast: The Randomized Phase III IRMA Trial.

PURPOSE: The results in terms of side effects vary among the published accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) studies. Here, we report the 5-year results for cosmetic outcomes and toxicity of the IRMA trial. METHODS: We ran this randomized phase III trial in 35 centers. Women with stage I-IIA breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, age ≥ 49 years, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either whole-breast irradiation (WBI) or external beam radiation therapy APBI (38.5 Gy/10 fraction twice daily). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary end point was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. We hereby present the analysis of the secondary outcomes, cosmesis, and normal tissue toxicity. All side effects were graded with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiation Morbidity Scoring Schema. Analysis was performed with both intention-to-treat and as-treated approaches. RESULTS: Between March 2007 and March 2019, 3,309 patients were randomly assigned to 1,657 WBI and 1,652 APBI; 3,225 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population (1,623 WBI and 1,602 APBI). At a median follow-up of 5.6 (interquartile range, 4.0-8.4) years, adverse cosmesis in the APBI patients was higher than that in the WBI patients at 3 years (12.7% v 9.2%; P = .009) and at 5 years (14% v 9.8%; P = .012). Late soft tissue toxicity (grade ≥ 3: 2.8% APBI v 1% WBI, P < .0001) and late bone toxicity (grade ≥ 3: 1.1% APBI v 0% WBI, P < .0001) were significantly higher in the APBI arm. There were no significant differences in late skin and lung toxicities. CONCLUSION: External beam radiation therapy-APBI with a twice-daily IRMA schedule was associated with increased rates of late moderate soft tissue and bone toxicities, with a slight decrease in patient-reported cosmetic outcomes at 5 years when compared with WBI, although overall toxicity was in an acceptable range.

External validation of a prediction model for timely implementation of innovations in radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to externally validate a model that predicts timely innovation implementation, which can support radiotherapy professionals to be more successful in innovation implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multivariate prediction model was built based on the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) criteria for a type 4 study (1). The previously built internally validated model had an AUC of 0.82, and was now validated using a completely new multicentre dataset. Innovation projects that took place between 2017-2019 were included in this study. Semi-structured interviews were performed to retrieve the prognostic variables of the previously built model. Projects were categorized according to the size of the project; the success of the project and thepresence of pre-defined success factors were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 80 included innovation projects (32.5% technological, 35% organisational and 32.5% treatment innovations), 55% were successfully implemented within the planned timeframe. Comparing the outcome predictions with the observed outcomes of all innovations resulted in an AUC of the external validation of the prediction model of 0.72 (0.60-0.84, 95% CI). Factors related to successful implementation included in the model are sufficient and competent employees, desirability and feasibility, clear goals and processes and the complexity of a project. CONCLUSION: For the first time, a prediction model focusing on the timely implementation of innovations has been successfully built and externally validated. This model can now be widely used to enable more successful innovation in radiotherapy.

Clues to address barriers for access to proton therapy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Netherlands has National Indication Protocols on proton therapy (PT) to select patients who benefit most from PT. However, referrals to proton therapy centres (PTCs) are lagging. The objective of this research is to identify the barriers for access to PT and to design interventions to address these barriers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a nationwide survey among radiation oncologists (ROs), and semi- structured in-depth interviews with ROs and patients. Subsequently, four workshops were held, in which ROs from one PTC and ROs from referring hospitals participated. The workshops were based on design-thinking research, where ideas were co-created on a multidisciplinary basis to encourage joint problem ownership. Kruskal Wallis and X2 tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS: The most prominent barriers mentioned by ROs were patient selection, poor logistics, and logistical worries about the combination of radiation treatment with chemotherapy. Patients pointed out the inefficient coordination between organisations, poor communication, travel issues and discomfort during treatment. Clues to increase referrals revealed the need for additional tools for patient selection and innovative ways to improve logistics. A case manager was identified as beneficial to the patients' journey as part of a multidisciplinary approach. Such an approach should include the active involvement of medical oncologists, surgeons and pulmonologists. CONCLUSION: Barriers for access to PT were identified and prioritized in the inter-organisational care- pathway of proton therapy patients in The Netherlands. Innovative solutions were co- designed to solve the barriers.

De-escalation of radiotherapy after primary chemotherapy in cT1-2N1 breast cancer (RAPCHEM; BOOG 2010-03): 5-year follow-up results of a Dutch, prospective, registry study.

BACKGROUND: Primary chemotherapy in breast cancer poses a dilemma with regard to adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy, as guidelines for locoregional radiotherapy were originally based on pathology results of primary surgery. We aimed to evaluate the oncological safety of de-escalated locoregional radiotherapy in patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to a predefined, consensus-based study guideline. METHODS: In this prospective registry study (RAPCHEM, BOOG 2010-03), patients referred to one of 17 participating radiation oncology centres in the Netherlands between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 1, 2015, with cT1-2N1 breast cancer (one to three suspicious nodes on imaging before primary chemotherapy, of which at least one had been pathologically confirmed), and who were treated with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla were included in the study. The study guideline comprised three risk groups for locoregional recurrence, with corresponding locoregional radiotherapy recommendations: no chest wall radiotherapy and no regional radiotherapy in the low-risk group, only local radiotherapy in the intermediate-risk group, and locoregional radiotherapy in the high-risk group. Radiotherapy consisted of a biologically equivalent dose of 25 fractions of 2 Gy, with or without a boost. During the study period, the generally applied radiotherapy technique in the Netherlands was forward-planned or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy. 5-year follow-up was assessed, taking into account adherence to the study guideline, with locoregional recurrence rate as primary endpoint. We hypothesised that 5-year locoregional recurrence rate would be less than 4% (upper-limit 95% CI 7·8%). This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01279304, and is completed. FINDINGS: 838 patients were eligible for 5-year follow-up analyses: 291 in the low-risk group, 370 in the intermediate-risk group, and 177 in the high-risk group. The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2·2% (95% CI 1·4-3·4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2·1% (0·9-4·3) in the low-risk group, 2·2% (1·0-4·1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2·3% (0·8-5·5) in the high-risk group. If the study guideline was followed, the locoregional recurrence rate was 2·3% (0·8-5·3) for the low-risk group, 1·0% (0·2-3·4) for the intermediate-risk group, and 1·4% (0·3-4·5) for the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION: In this study, the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was less than 4%, which supports our hypothesis that it is oncologically safe to de-escalate locoregional radiotherapy based on locoregional recurrence risk, in selected patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to this predefined, consensus-based study guideline. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society. TRANSLATION: For the Dutch translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ways to improve breast cancer patients' management and clinical outcome: The 2020 Assisi Think Tank Meeting.

We report on the third Assisi Think Tank Meeting (ATTM) on breast cancer, a brainstorming project which involved European radiation and clinical oncologists who were dedicated to breast cancer research and treatment. Held on February 2020, the ATTM aimed at identifying key clinical questions in current clinical practice and "grey" areas requiring research to improve management and outcomes. Before the meeting, three key topics were selected: 1) managing patients with frailty due to either age and/or multi-morbidity; 2) stereotactic radiation therapy and systemic therapy in the management of oligometastatic disease; 3) contralateral breast tumour prevention in BCRA-mutated patients. Clinical practice in these areas was investigated by means of an online questionnaire. In the lapse period between the survey and the meeting, the working groups reviewed data, on-going studies and the clinical challenges which were then discussed in-depth and subjected to intense brainstorming during the meeting; research protocols were also proposed. Methodology, outcome of discussions, conclusions and study proposals are summarized in the present paper. In conclusion, this report presents an in-depth analysis of the state of the art, grey areas and controversies in breast cancer radiation therapy and discusses how to confront them in the absence of evidence-based data to guide clinical decision-making.

Breast cancer patients' most important quality of life themes for a radiotherapy decision aid.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The BRASA patient decision aid (BRASA-PtDA) facilitates shared decision making for breast cancer patients (BCPs) facing a radiotherapy treatment decision. During evaluations, patients indicated the wish for quantitative information on side effects. Therefore, this study assessed BCPs opinion on which and how information on side effects should be incorporated in the BRASA-PtDA. METHODS: A workshop was organized with BCPs (n = 9), researchers (n = 5) and clinicians (n = 3). Subsequently, a survey was sent to BCPs (n = 744) investigating the generalisability of the workshop findings, and posing additional questions. The survey entailed multiple choice questions on quality of life themes, the use of a decision aid and risk communication. RESULTS: The workshop revealed BCPs wish for a layered, all encompassing information system. Information on the impact of side effects on daily life was preferred above the risk of these side effects. The survey revealed that important quality of life (QoL) themes were having energy (81%; n = 605), arm function (61%; n = 452), pain (55%; n = 410). Despite the focus on qualitative effects in the workshop, 89% of the survey respondents also wanted to be informed on individualized risks of side effects. 54% Of the survey respondents had never heard of a PtDA. CONCLUSIONS: BCPs preferred information on the impact of side effects, but also their individualized risks on side effects. Most important QoL themes were having enough energy, arm function and pain. Consequently, the BRASA-PtDA should be reshaped, starting with quality of life themes, rather than side effects.

Transparency in quality of radiotherapy for breast cancer in the Netherlands: a national registration of radiotherapy-parameters.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is part of the curative treatment of approximately 70% of breast cancer (BC) patients. Wide practice variation has been reported in RT dose, fractionation and its treatment planning for BC. To decrease this practice variation, it is essential to first gain insight into the current variation in RT treatment between institutes. This paper describes the development of the NABON Breast Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (NBCA-R), a structural nationwide registry of BC RT data of all BC patients treated with at least surgery and RT. METHODS: A working group consisting of representatives of the BC Platform of the Dutch Radiotherapy Society selected a set of dose volume parameters deemed to be surrogate outcome parameters, both for tumour control and toxicity. Two pilot studies were carried out in six RT institutes. In the first pilot study, data were manually entered into a secured web-based system. In the second pilot study, an automatic Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) RT upload module was created and tested. RESULTS: The NBCA-R dataset was created by selecting RT parameters describing given dose, target volumes, coverage and homogeneity, and dose to organs at risk (OAR). Entering the data was made mandatory for all Dutch RT departments. In the first pilot study (N = 1093), quite some variation was already detected. Application of partial breast irradiation varied from 0 to 17% between the 6 institutes and boost to the tumour bed from 26.5 to 70.2%. For patients treated to the left breast or chest wall only, the average mean heart dose (MHD) varied from 0.80 to 1.82 Gy; for patients treated to the breast/chest wall only, the average mean lung dose (MLD) varied from 2.06 to 3.3 Gy. In the second pilot study 6 departments implemented the DICOM-RT upload module in daily practice. Anonymised data will be available for researchers via a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) framework. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a set of RT parameters and implemented registration for all Dutch BC patients. With the use of an automated upload module registration burden will be minimized. Based on the data in the NBCA-R analyses of the practice variation will be done, with the ultimate aim to improve quality of BC RT. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

A Delphi study and International Consensus Recommendations: The use of bolus in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy for early breast cancer.

Bolus serves as a tissue equivalent material that shifts the 95-100% isodose line towards the skin and subcutaneous tissue. The need for bolus for all breast cancer patients planned for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has been questioned. The work was initiated by the faculty of the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) breast cancer courses and represents a multidisciplinary international breast cancer expert collaboration to optimize PMRT. Due to the lack of randomised trials evaluating the benefits of bolus, we designed a stepwise project to evaluate the existing evidence about the use of bolus in the setting of PMRT to achieve an international consensus for the indications of bolus in PMRT, based on the Delphi method.

[Should every innovation be evaluated in an RCT? Considerations for the selection of patients for proton therapy]. / Moeten innovaties in een RCT geëvalueerd worden?

Elsewhere in this journal an important question is raised: 'Are randomized trials (RCTs) necessary to demonstrate the superiority of radiation treatment, more specifically proton therapy?' We recognize that RCTs are considered to be the highest degree of certainty (evidence) to substantiate differences, as they allow to demonstrate or reject causality between an intervention and an outcome. However, in this comment we also raise some concerns about RCTs, and explain why especially in technological innovations, RCTs are not always the best approach. We explain why we consider the model-based approach as currently applied in The Netherlands for proton therapy, as complementary to RCTs, just as epidemiological or real-life 'big data' are, each with their advantages and disadvantages. We compare this approach with the FDA's Fast Track program, since proton therapy is a treatment that 'reasonably likely' causes less serious side effects with the same tumour effects.

National Protocol for Model-Based Selection for Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer.

In the Netherlands, the model-based approach is used to identify patients with head and neck cancer who may benefit most from proton therapy in terms of prevention of late radiation-induced side effects in comparison with photon therapy. To this purpose, a National Indication Protocol Proton therapy for Head and Neck Cancer patients (NIPP-HNC) was developed, which has been approved by the health care authorities. When patients qualify according to the guidelines of the NIPP-HNC, proton therapy is fully reimbursed. This article describes the procedures that were followed to develop this NIPP-HNC and provides all necessary information to introduce model-based selection for patients with head and neck cancer into routine clinical practice.

The use of bolus in postmastectomy radiation therapy for breast cancer: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces locoregional recurrence (LRR) and breast cancer mortality for selected patients. Bolus overcomes the skin-sparing effect of external-beam radiotherapy, ensuring adequate dose to superficial regions at risk of local recurrence (LR). This systematic review summarizes the current evidence regarding the impact of bolus on LR and acute toxicity in the setting of PMRT. RESULTS: 27 studies were included. The use of bolus led to higher rates of acute grade 3 radiation dermatitis (pooled rates of 9.6% with bolus vs. 1.2% without). Pooled crude LR rates from thirteen studies (n = 3756) were similar with (3.5%) and without (3.6%) bolus. CONCLUSIONS: Bolus may be indicated in cases with a high risk of LR in the skin, but seems not to be necessary for all patients. Further work is needed to define the role of bolus in PMRT.

A multidisciplinary view of mastectomy and breast reconstruction: Understanding the challenges.

The current review paper was written in collaboration with breast cancer surgeons from the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST), a breast pathologist from the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG), and representatives from the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) breast cancer course. Herein we summarize the different mastectomies and reconstruction procedures and define high-risk anatomical areas for breast cancer recurrences, to further specify the challenges in the surgical procedure, histopathological evaluation, and target volumes in case of postmastectomy irradiation, as recommended by the ESTRO guidelines according to the surgical procedure. The paper has original figures and illustrations for all disciplines for in-depth understanding of the differences between the procedures.

A multidisciplinary approach for autologous breast reconstruction: A narrative (re)view for better management.

Breast reconstruction and oncoplastic surgery have become an important part of breast cancer care. The use of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) has evolved significantly with advances in microsurgery, aiming to reduce donor site complications and improve cosmesis. For years, immediate-ABR was considered a contraindication if postmastectomy irradiation (PMRT) was planned. As a result of de-escalation of axillary surgery the indication of PMRT are increasing along-side with observations that PMRT in the setting of ABR is not contraindicated. Surgical techniques may result in different amount and areas of breast residual glandular tissue and patient selection is important to reduce potential residual disease. Meticulus radiation planning is important to potentially reduce complications without compromising oncologic outcomes. Surgical techniques change constantly in aim to improve aesthetic results but should most importantly maintain priority to the oncological indications. By multidisciplinary team work with a comprehensive understanding of each discipline, we can preserve the accomplishments of breast surgery in the setting of PMRT, without compromising disease control.

[After a slow start, inflow of patients to Dutch proton center patients now as expected]. / Instroom patiënten protonencentra nu volgens verwachting, na trage start.

Hordijk has tried to describe the process about how the proton centers (PTC) came about, and to what extent the expectations regarding the numbers of patients have come true. In his article, the author states that there is a huge overcapacity for proton therapy. In this commentary we substantiate that this statement is incorrect in our opinion. There is no question of overcapacity: the fact that we do not yet treat the licensed patient numbers with proton therapy, 2 to 3 years after the start of proton therapy in the Netherlands, has to do with a calculated build-up (ramp-up) phase. In this commentary we explain why a ramp-up is inevitable with these types of complex innovations, and also why the ramp-up is slightly slower than expected. However, we certainly expect the growth to continue over the next 2 years, so that the patient numbers will be in line with the expected capacity.