Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. So far, studies investigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear. We aimed to compare conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS: We did a randomised phase 2 trial (MC1631) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester (MN, USA) and Mayo Clinic in Arizona (Phoenix, AZ, USA) comparing conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) and hypofractionated (40·05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) proton PMRT. All patients were treated with pencil-beam scanning. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and breast cancer resected by mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either conventional fractionation or hypofractionation, with presence of immediate reconstruction (yes vs no) as a stratification factor, using a biased-coin minimisation algorithm. Any patient who received at least one fraction of protocol treatment was evaluable for the primary endpoint and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 24-month complication rate from the date of first radiotherapy, defined as grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring from 90 days after last radiotherapy or unplanned surgical interventions in patients with immediate reconstruction. The inferiority of hypofractionation would not be ruled out if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in 24-month complication rate between the two groups was greater than 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783690, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2016, and Aug 23, 2018, 88 patients were randomly assigned (44 to each group), of whom 82 received protocol treatment (41 in the conventional fractionation group and 41 in the hypofractionation group; median age of 52 years [IQR 44-64], 79 [96%] patients were White, two [2%] were Black or African American, one [1%] was Asian, and 79 [96%] were not of Hispanic ethnicity). As of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2023), the median follow-up was 39·3 months (IQR 37·5-61·2). The median mean heart dose was 0·54 Gy (IQR 0·30-0·72) for the conventional fractionation group and 0·49 Gy (0·25-0·64) for the hypofractionation group. Within 24 months of first radiotherapy, 14 protocol-defined complications occurred in six (15%) patients in the conventional fractionation group and in eight (20%) patients in the hypofractionation group (absolute difference 4·9% [one-sided 95% CI 18·5], p=0·27). The complications in the conventionally fractionated group were contracture (five [12%] of 41 patients]) and fat necrosis (one [2%] patient) requiring surgical intervention. All eight protocol-defined complications in the hypofractionation group were due to infections, three of which were acute infections that required surgical intervention, and five were late infections, four of which required surgical intervention. All 14 complications were in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. INTERPRETATION: After a median follow-up of 39·3 months, non-inferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be established. However, given similar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients with and without immediate reconstruction. FUNDING: The Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA, and the US National Cancer Institute.

A qualitative study to evaluate physician attitudes regarding omission of surgery among exceptional responders to neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer (NRG-CC006).

PURPOSE: Accrual to clinical trials that challenge well-established treatment paradigms represents a unique challenge. Physician opinions on investigation of a novel approach to breast cancer treatment, in which patients with complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy are offered omission of lumpectomy, are unknown. NRG-CC006 sought to describe physician attitudes toward a novel approach to breast cancer treatment. METHODS: We recruited 18 participants in the fields of surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology to participate in the semi-structured telephone interviews. Main outcomes are qualitative themes associated with omission of surgery. RESULTS: Of 18 interview participants, specialty and gender were evenly represented across surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. Qualitative themes included general attitudes toward treatment de-escalation, stakeholder considerations, and trial/protocol considerations. The vast majority of participants expressed interest in investigation of omission of surgery, with all participants endorsing need for further investigation into treatment de-escalation. Stakeholder considerations in opening such a trial emphasized need for multidisciplinary involvement and, particularly, the unique role of surgeons as gatekeepers in breast cancer treatment. Finally, participants endorsed a need for further foundational studies to develop ways to predict complete pathologic response to chemotherapy without surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians expressed interest in investigating a novel approach to breast cancer treatment that would omit surgery in complete responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Multidisciplinary input, and specifically surgeon engagement, will be key to the success of future investigations. Ongoing work to develop approaches to predict pathologic complete response accurately is needed to achieve the promise of this idea. ClinTrials #: BR005: NCT03188393 June 13, 2017.

Use of the Twelve-Gene Recurrence Score for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ and Its Influence on Receipt of Adjuvant Radiation and Hormonal Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic prognostic assays estimate 10-year local recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and can guide treatment decisions. This study aimed to evaluate which DCIS patients treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) underwent DCIS score genomic testing and the influence of the results on adjuvant treatment recommendations. METHODS: The study identified patients from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) who had DCIS treated with BCS from 2010 to 2016. RESULTS: Of 141,047 patients, 4255 (3%) had a DCIS score assessed, 0.3% in 2010 increasing to 5.8% in 2016 (p < 0.001). The patients most likely to undergo DCIS score assessment had more favorable tumor features in the multivariable analysis. The DCIS score result was documented for 91.4% of the tested patients (n = 3888): 70.5% of the low-risk, 14.9% of the intermediate-risk, and 14.6% of the high-risk patients. The patients with low-risk scores were less likely to have radiation than those with intermediate- or high-risk scores among the patients with either ER + (35.0% vs 71.0% or 81.1%) or ER- disease (48.1% vs 77.0% or 85.5%) (each p ≤ 0.001). The patients who had ER + disease with high- and intermediate-risk scores were most commonly treated with both radiation and hormone therapy (HT) (57.1% and 52.2%), whereas the most common treatment for those with a low-risk DCIS score was HT alone without radiation (37.1%). Comparison of genomic testing with clinicopathologic features showed an independent influence of genomic testing on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the DCIS score increased over time, predominantly for favorable DCIS. Patients with a low-risk score were significantly less likely to receive radiation, supporting an impact of the DCIS score on treatment de-escalation.

Characterising potential bone scan overuse amongst men treated with radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise bone scan use, and potential overuse, after radical prostatectomy (RP) using data from a large, national integrated delivery system. Overuse of imaging is well documented in the setting of newly diagnosed prostate cancer, but whether overuse persists after RP remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 12 269 patients with prostate cancer treated with RP between 2005 and 2008 using the Veterans Administration Central Cancer Registry. We used administrative and laboratory data to examine rates of bone scan use, including preceding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and receipt of adjuvant or salvage therapy. We then performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with post-RP bone scan use. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6.8 years, one in five men (22%) underwent a post-RP bone scan at a median PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL. Half of bone scans (48%) were obtained in men who did not receive further treatment with androgen-deprivation or radiation therapy. After adjustment, post-RP bone scan was associated with a prior bone scan (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.84), positive surgical margin (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.40-2.01), preoperative PSA level (aOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), as well as Hispanic ethnicity, Black race, and increasing D'Amico risk category, but not with age or comorbidity. CONCLUSION: We found a substantial rate of bone scan utilisation after RP. The majority were performed for PSA levels of <1 ng/mL where the likelihood of a positive test is low. More judicious use of imaging appears warranted in the post-RP setting.

Patient views and correlates of radiotherapy omission in a population-based sample of older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The omission of radiotherapy (RT) after lumpectomy is a reasonable option for many older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer. In the current study, we sought to evaluate patient perspectives regarding decision making about RT. METHODS: Women aged 65 to 79 years with AJCC 7th edition stage I and II breast cancer who were reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (response rate, 70%) regarding RT decisions, the rationale for omitting RT, decision-making values, and understanding of disease recurrence risk. We also surveyed their corresponding surgeons (response rate, 77%). Patient characteristics associated with the omission of RT were evaluated using multilevel, multivariable logistic regression, accounting for patient clustering within surgeons. RESULTS: Of 999 patients, 135 omitted RT (14%). Older age, lower tumor grade, and having estrogen receptor-positive disease each were found to be strongly associated with omission of RT in multivariable analyses, whereas the number of comorbidities was not. Non-English speakers were more likely to omit RT (adjusted odds ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-24.5). The most commonly reported reasons for RT omission were that a physician advised the patient that it was not needed (54% of patients who omitted RT) and patient choice (41%). Risk of local disease recurrence was overestimated by all patients: by approximately 2-fold among those who omitted RT and by approximately 8-fold among those who received RT. The risk of distant disease recurrence was overestimated by approximately 3-fold on average. CONCLUSIONS: To some extent, decisions regarding RT omission are appropriately influenced by patient age, tumor grade, and estrogen receptor status, but do not appear to be optimally tailored according to competing comorbidities. Many women who are candidates for RT omission overestimate their risk of disease recurrence. Cancer 2018;124:2714-2723. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Treatment experiences of Latinas after diagnosis of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The authors examined racial/ethnic differences in patient perspectives regarding their breast cancer treatment experiences. METHODS: A weighted random sample of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 in Los Angeles County and Georgia were sent surveys 2 months after undergoing surgery (5080 women; 70% response rate). The analytic sample was limited to patients residing in Los Angeles County (2397 women). RESULTS: The pattern of visits with different specialists before surgery was found to be similar across racial/ethnic groups. Low acculturated Latinas (Latinas-LA) were less likely to report high clinician communication quality for both surgeons and medical oncologists (<69% vs >72% for all other groups; P<.05). The percentage of patients who reported high satisfaction regarding how physicians worked together was similar across racial/ethnic groups. Latinas-LA were more likely to have a low autonomy decision style (48% vs 24%-50% for all other groups; P<.001) and were more likely to report receiving too much information versus other ethnic groups (20% vs <16% for other groups; P<.001). Patients who reported a low autonomy decision style were more likely to rate the amount of information they received for the surgery decision as "too much" (16% vs 9%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be moderate disparity in breast cancer treatment communication and decision-making experiences reported by Latinas-LA versus other groups. The approach to treatment decision making by Latinas-LA represents an important challenge to health care providers. Initiatives are needed to improve patient engagement in decision making and increase clinician awareness of these challenges in this patient population. Cancer 2017;123:3022-30. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Surgeon and Radiation Oncologist Views on Omission of Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Older Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Although clinical trials have shown no survival advantage and only a modest improvement in local control from adjuvant radiotherapy after lumpectomy in older women with stage I, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer, radiotherapy is commonly administered, raising concerns about overtreatment. Therefore, we sought to evaluate physician views on omission of radiotherapy in older women with favorable prognosis breast cancer. METHODS: We surveyed a national sample of 713 radiation oncologists and 879 surgeons. Of these, 1504 were eligible and 825 responded (55%). We assessed responses to clinical scenarios, knowledge of pertinent risk information, and correlates of views on radiotherapy omission. RESULTS: Omission of radiotherapy in patients age ≥70 years with stage I, ER+ breast cancer, treated with lumpectomy and endocrine therapy, was felt to be unreasonable by 40% of surgeons and 20% of radiation oncologists. Many surgeons (29%) and radiation oncologists (10%) erroneously associated radiotherapy in older women with improvement in survival. Similarly, 32% of surgeons and 19% of radiation oncologists tended to substantially overestimate the risk of locoregional recurrence in older women with omission of RT. In a scenario with an 81-year-old with multiple comorbidities, 31% of surgeons and 35% of radiation oncologists would still recommend radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Many radiation oncologists and surgeons continue to consider omission of radiotherapy as substandard therapy and overestimate the benefits of radiotherapy. Surgeons, in addition to radiation oncologists, may have an opportunity to play a pivotal role in reducing overuse of aggressive care in this setting.

Physician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes of the MC1635 Phase 3 Trial of Ultrahypofractionated Versus Moderately Hypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to report physician- and patient-reported outcomes of patients with localized breast cancer treated with moderate versus ultrahypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between February 2018 and February 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (pT0-3 pN0-1 M0) were offered participation in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing adjuvant moderate hypofractionation (MHF) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions versus ultrahypofractionation (UHF) to 25 Gy in 5 fractions after BCS, with an optional simultaneously integrated boost. Toxicities, cosmesis, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years from irradiation using validated metric tools. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were randomized to MHF (n = 54) or UHF (n = 53) adjuvant WBI. The median follow-up was 42.8 months. Grade 2 radiation dermatitis was experienced by 4 patients (7.4%) in the MHF arm and 2 patients (3.7%) in the UHF arm at EOT (P = .726). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. Deterioration of cosmesis by physician assessment was observed in 2 (6.7%) patients treated in the UHF arm and 1 (1.9%) patient treated in the MHF arm at EOT (P = .534), whereas at 3 months, only 1 (1.8%) patient treated in the MHF arm demonstrated deterioration of cosmesis (P = .315). At EOT, 91% and 94% of patients reported excellent/good cosmesis among those treated with MHF and UHF regimens, respectively (P = .550). At 3 months, more patients within the MHF arm reported excellent/good cosmesis compared with those in the UHF arm (100% vs 91%; P = .030). However, the difference in patient-reported cosmesis disappeared at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year time points. CONCLUSIONS: UHF WBI showed similar treatment-related late toxicities and similar provider-scored cosmesis compared with MHF radiation in patients treated adjuvantly after BCS.

Partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS: A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.

Study of linear energy transfer effect on rib fracture in breast patients receiving pencil-beamscanning proton therapy.

Purpose: To study the effect of proton linear energy transfer (LET) on rib fracture in breast cancer patients treated with pencil-beam scanning proton therapy (PBS) using a novel tool of dose-LET volume histogram (DLVH). Methods: From a prospective registry of patients treated with post-mastectomy proton therapy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes for breast cancer between 2015 and 2020, we retrospectively identified rib fracture cases detected after completing treatment. Contemporaneously treated control patients that did not develop rib fracture were matched to patients 2:1 considering prescription dose, boost location, reconstruction status, laterality, chest wall thickness, and treatment year.The DLVH index, V(d, l), defined as volume(V) of the structure with at least dose(d) and LET(l), was calculated. DLVH plots between the fracture and control group were compared. Conditional logistic regression (CLR) model was used to establish the relation of V(d, l) and the observed fracture at each combination of d and l. The p-value derived from CLR model shows the statistical difference between fracture patients and the matched control group. Using the 2D p-value map derived from CLR model, the DLVH features associated with the patient outcomes were extracted. Results: Seven rib fracture patients were identified, and fourteen matched patients were selected for the control group. The median time from the completion of proton therapy to rib fracture diagnosis was 12 months (range 5 to 14 months). Two patients had grade 2 symptomatic rib fracture while the remaining 5 were grade 1 incidentally detected on imaging. The derived p-value map demonstrated larger V(0-36Gy[RBE], 4.0-5.0 keV/µm) in patients experiencing fracture (p<0.1). For example, the p value for V(30 Gy[RBE], 4.0 keV/um) was 0.069. Conclusions: In breast cancer patients receiving PBS, a larger volume of chest wall receiving moderate dose and high LET may result in increased risk of rib fracture.

Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm. CONCLUSIONS: With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.

Long-term outcomes of intraoperatively-placed applicator brachytherapy for rapid completion of breast conserving treatment: An analysis of a prospective registry data.

Background and purpose: To evaluate the long-term outcome of accelerated partial breast irradiation utilizing intraoperatively placed applicator-based brachytherapy (ABB) in early-stage breast cancer. Materials and methods: From our prospective registry, 223 patients with pTis-T2, pN0/pN1mic breast cancer were treated with ABB. The median treatment duration including surgery and ABB was 7 days. The prescribed doses were 32 Gy/8 fx BID (n = 25), 34 Gy/10 fx BID (n = 99), and 21 Gy/3 fx QD (n = 99). Endocrine therapy (ET) adherence was defined as completion of planned ET or ≥ 80% of the follow-up (FU) period. Cumulative incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) was estimated and influencing factors for IBTR-free survival rate (IBTRFS) were analyzed. Results: 218/223 patients had hormone receptor-positive tumors, including 38 (17.0%) with Tis and 185 (83.0%) with invasive cancer. After a median FU of 63 months, 19 (8.5%) patients had recurrence [17 (7.6%) with an IBTR]. Rates of 5-year IBTRFS and DFS were 92.2% and 91.1%, respectively. The 5-year IBTRFS rates were significantly higher for post-menopausal women (93.6% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.04), BMI < 30 kg/m2 (97.4% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.02), and ET-adherence (97.5% vs. 88.6%, p = 0.02). IBTRFS did not differ with dose regimens. Conclusions: Postmenopausal status, BMI < 30 kg/m2, and ET- adherence predicted favorable IBTRFS. Our results highlight the importance of careful patient selection for ABB and encouragement of ET compliance.

Integrating the Patient's Voice in Toxicity Reporting and Treatment Decisions for Breast Radiotherapy.

Breast cancer care is often defined by preference-sensitive decisions, in which no one choice clearly dominates, and the treatment approach is ideally guided by patient values and preferences. In this context, patients are vulnerable to suboptimal decision quality due to the number and complexity of choices. Arriving at a high-quality, patient-centered decision involves both an accurate understanding of the risks and benefits of treatment options, as well as concordance with the patient's preferences and values. These 2 objectives intersect at the informed consent discussion. In radiation oncology, informed consent has an added layer of complexity related to strong desire from patients to receive the most technologically advanced treatment, often out of balance with other rational considerations. These observations highlight challenges and opportunities unique to radiation oncology in improving communication and arriving at a high-quality decision.

Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Bilateral Breast or Chest Wall and Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation for Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer: Initial Clinical Experience and Dosimetric Comparison.

Purpose: Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) poses distinct challenges for radiation therapy planning. We report our proton therapy experience in treating patients with SBBC. We also provide a dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus photon therapy. Methods and Materials: Patients with SBBC who received IMPT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the breast or chest wall and comprehensive regional lymph nodes, including axilla, supraclavicular fossa, and the internal mammary chain. Intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated with the goal that 90% of the CTV would recieve at least 90% of the prescription dose (D90>=90%). Comparisons between modalities were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Physician-reported acute toxic effects and photography were collected at baseline, end of treatment, and each follow-up visit. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 11 patients with SBBC were treated with IMPT. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The median CTV D90 was 99.9% for IMPT and 97.6% for VMAT (P = .001). The mean heart dose was 0.7 Gy versus 7.2 Gy (P = .001), the total lung mean dose was 7.8 Gy versus 17.3 Gy (P = .001), and the total lung volume recieving 20 Gy was 13.0% versus 27.4% (P = .001). The most common acute toxic effects were dermatitis (mostly grade 1-2 with 1 case of grade 3) and grade 1 to 2 fatigue. The most common toxic effects at the last-follow up (median, 32 months) were grade 1 skin hyperpigmentation, superficial fibrosis, and extremity lymphedema. No nondermatologic or nonfatigue adverse events of grade >1 were recorded. Conclusions: Bilateral breast and/or chest wall and comprehensive nodal IMPT is technically feasible and associated with low rates of severe acute toxic effects. Treatment with IMPT offered improved target coverage and normal-tissue sparing compared with photon therapy. Long-term follow-up is ongoing to assess efficacy and toxic effects.

Proton therapy for the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) poses a radiotherapeutic challenge due to dermal lymphatic involvement, which often necessitates larger target volumes and chest wall boosts, making advanced planning techniques attractive to reduce exposure to nearby organs. We report our experience with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for the treatment of IBC. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2020, all IBC patients treated with adjuvant IMPT at our institution were identified. Overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using CTCAE version 5.0. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were identified with median 24-month follow-up. CTVs included skin, chest wall, and regional lymph nodes. Median dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions, with fifteen receiving chest wall boost (median 56.25 Gy in 25 fractions). During treatment, plan re-optimization was required in 9 (47%). Acute grade 3 dermatitis occurred in 2 (11%). Rib facture occurred in 4 (21%). One patient with pre-existing surgical seroma experienced a grade 3 fistula. Mean heart, left anterior descending artery, and right coronary artery doses were 0.7 Gy, 2.3 Gy, and 0.1 Gy, respectively. Mean ipsilateral lung V20Gy was 14.9%. At 2 years, there were no locoregional recurrences, and OS and DMFS were 89% and 82%, respectively. CONCLUSION: IMPT for IBC is well-tolerated with excellent dosimetry, low rates of AEs, and favorable early locoregional control outcomes. Follow-up for long-term outcomes is ongoing. Our findings suggest that IMPT is feasible and an attractive modality worthy of further investigation in patients with IBC.

Reirradiation for Locoregional Recurrent Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Reirradiation poses a distinct therapeutic challenge owing to risks associated with exceeding normal tissue tolerances and possibly more therapeutically resistant disease biology. We report our experience with reirradiation for locoregional recurrent or second primary breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1999 and 2019, all patients with breast cancer treated with repeat breast/chest wall radiation therapy (RT) at our institution were identified. Adverse events were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney rank-sum, and unpaired t tests were used for statistical analysis. Freedom from locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis as well as overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent reirradiation. Median prior RT dose, reirradiation dose, and cumulative dose were 60 Gy (interquartile range [IQR], 50-60.4 Gy), 45 Gy (IQR, 40-50 Gy), and 103.54 Gy2 (IQR, 95.04-109.62 Gy2), respectively. Median time between RT courses was 73 months (IQR, 29-129 months). Thirty-four patients (47%) had gross residual disease at time of reirradiation. Course intent was described as curative in 44 patients (61%) and palliative in 28 (39%). Fifty-two patients (72%) were treated with photons ± electrons and 20 (28%) with protons. With a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR, 10-43 months), grade 3 adverse events were experienced by 13% of patients (10% acute skin toxicity and 3% late skin necrosis). Time between RT courses and reirradiation fields was significantly associated with the development of grade 3 toxicity at any point. Proton therapy conferred a dosimetric advantage without difference in toxicity. At 2 years, locoregional recurrence-free survival was 74.6% and overall survival was 65.5% among all patients, and 93.1% and 76.8%, respectively, among curative intent patients treated without gross disease. Distant metastasis-free survival was 59.0% among all curative intent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Reirradiation for locoregional recurrent breast cancer is feasible with acceptable rates of toxicity. Disease control and survival are promising among curative intent reirradiation patients without gross disease.

Development of an Illustrated Scale for Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Scales for rating acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) have not been validated despite decades of clinical use, and little is known regarding the relationship between toxicity scores and patient-reported symptoms. Skin tone also complicates assessment of ARD, and as such we sought to design an illustrated scale to consistently describe ARD across several skin tone types in breast cancer patients undergoing radiation (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients undergoing RT for breast cancer were enrolled on a prospective study with photographs obtained at 2-week intervals. Photographs were clustered according to the apparent severity of acute radiation dermatitis and a descriptive photonumeric scale was developed. Four clinically experienced raters used both the illustrated photonumeric scale and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events to independently score the collection of photographs in 2 independent sessions. RESULTS: Among 80 unique patients with 192 photographs, 47 patients (59%) completed questionnaires about their symptoms during RT. Physicians completed toxicity forms at the point-of-care for 52 patients (65%). Photonumeric ratings compared against patient reports of dry and moist desquamation demonstrated high specificity (95% and 93%, respectively) and negative predictive value (84% and 92%), indicating correct identification of patients who did not report dry or moist desquamation. The sensitivity and positive predictive value for separate measures of dry and moist desquamation were considerably lower. A combined measure of any desquamation (dry or moist) portrayed higher diagnostic accuracy, resulting in 72% sensitivity, 93% specificity, 75% positive predictive value, and 92% negative predictive value. Photonumeric ratings of dry or moist desquamation were significantly associated with patient reports of itching, burning or stinging, hurting, and swelling. CONCLUSIONS: The Michigan scale for acute radiation dermatitis is a simple grading rubric that is distinguished by characterization of its intra- and interrater reliability and diagnostic accuracy, correlation with patient-reported symptoms of bother and pain, and applicability across the spectrum of skin pigmentation.

Patient Perceptions in a Nonblinded Randomized Trial of Radiation Therapy Technologies: A Novel Survey Study Exploring Therapeutic Misconception.

PURPOSE: Therapeutic misconception is the tendency for a clinical trial participant to overlook the scientific objective of a clinical trial and instead believe that an experimental intervention is intended for personal therapeutic benefit. We sought to evaluate this tendency in the setting of a clinical trial of a new radiation therapy technology. METHODS: Patients with left-sided, node positive breast cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating intensity modulated radiation therapy with deep inspiration breath hold (IMRT-DIBH) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Patients who enrolled completed surveys at baseline, after randomization, and upon completion of radiation therapy to evaluate expectations, satisfaction, and experiences. RESULTS: Forty women participated in the survey study, with 20 in each arm. Most participants endorsed the perception that participation in the trial might result in better treatment than the current standard treatment (77%) and more medical attention than being off trial (54%). At baseline, most women (74%) believed that a new treatment technology is superior than an established one. Before randomization, 43% of participants believed IMRT-DIBH would be more effective than standard treatment with 3DCRT, none believed that 3DCRT would be more effective, 23% believed that they would be the same, and 34% did not know. None believed that IMRT-DIBH would cause worse long-term side effects, whereas 37% thought that 3DCRT would. Most (71%) reported that they would choose to be treated with IMRT-DIBH; none would have elected 3DCRT if given a choice. Nearly half (44%) in the 3DCRT arm wished that they had been assigned to the IMRT-DIBH arm; none in the IMRT-DIBH arm expressed a wish for crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported the perception that trial participation would result in better treatment and more medical attention than off trial, hallmarks of therapeutic misconception. Our observations provide empirical evidence of a fixed belief in the superiority of new technology and highlight the importance of adjusting expectations through informed consent to mitigate therapeutic misconception.

Incorporation of Biologic Response Variance Modeling Into the Clinic: Limiting Risk of Brachial Plexopathy and Other Late Effects of Breast Cancer Proton Beam Therapy.

PURPOSE: The relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) rises with increasing linear energy transfer toward the end of proton tracks. Presently, there is no consensus on how RBE heterogeneity should be accounted for in breast cancer proton therapy treatment planning. Our purpose was to determine the dosimetric consequences of incorporating a brachial plexus (BP) biologic dose constraint and to describe other clinical implications of biologic planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We instituted a biologic dose constraint for the BP in the context of MC1631, a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). IMPT plans of 13 patients treated before the implementation of the biologic dose constraint (cohort A) were compared with IMPT plans of 38 patients treated on MC1631 after its implementation (cohort B) using (1) a commercially available Eclipse treatment planning system (RBE = 1.1); (2) an in-house graphic processor unit-based Monte Carlo physical dose simulation (RBE = 1.1); and (3) an in-house Monte Carlo biologic dose (MCBD) simulation that assumes a linear relationship between RBE and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (product of RBE and physical dose = biologic dose). RESULTS: Before implementation of a BP biologic dose constraint, the Eclipse mean BP D0.01 cm3 was 107%, and the MCBD estimate was 128% (ie, 64 Gy [RBE = biologic dose] in 25 fractions for a 50-Gy [RBE = 1.1] prescription), compared with 100.0% and 116.0%, respectively, after the implementation of the constraint. Implementation of the BP biologic dose constraint did not significantly affect clinical target volume coverage. MCBD plans predicted greater internal mammary node coverage and higher heart dose than Eclipse plans. CONCLUSIONS: Institution of a BP biologic dose constraint may reduce brachial plexopathy risk without compromising target coverage. MCBD plan evaluation provides valuable information to physicians that may assist in making clinical judgments regarding relative priority of target coverage versus normal tissue sparing.

Patient Experiences and Clinician Views on the Role of Radiation Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient experiences with decisions regarding radiation therapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to assess clinician views on the role of RT for DCIS with favorable features in the present era. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A sample of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer from the population-based Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were sent surveys approximately 2 months after undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), with a 70% response rate. The analytic sample was limited to 538 respondents with unilateral DCIS. We also surveyed 761 surgeons and radiation oncologists treating breast cancer in those regions, of whom, 539 responded (71%). RESULTS: After BCS, 23% of patients omitted RT, with twice the rate of omission in Los Angeles County relative to Georgia (31% vs 16%; P < .001). The most common reasons for omitting RT were advice from a clinician that it was not needed (62%) and concern about side effects (24%). Cost and transportation were not reported as influential considerations. After covariate adjustment, low- and intermediate-grade disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-12; and OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.1, respectively) and Los Angeles County SEER site (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.2) were significantly associated with greater RT omission. Of the responding clinicians, 62% would discuss RT omission for a patient with DCIS with favorable features. Clinicians in Los Angeles County were more likely to discuss RT omission than were those in Georgia (67% vs 56%; P = .01). Approximately one third of clinicians would obtain the Oncotype DX DCIS score. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity in RT omission after BCS for DCIS continues to be substantial, with systematic differences in provider opinions across the 2 regions we studied. Enhanced precision of recurrence estimates, guidance from professional organizations, and better communication are needed to improve the consistency of treatment in this controversial area.