Personalizing Locoregional Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer in 2024: Tailoring Axillary Surgery, Escalating Lymphatic Surgery, and Implementing Evidence-Based Hypofractionated Radiotherapy.

The management of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer is continually evolving. Recent data now support omitting axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in most patients with metastases in up to two sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) during upfront surgery and those with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In the upfront surgery setting, ALND is still indicated, however, in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer or more than two positive SLNs and, after NACT, in case of residual micrometastases and macrometastases. Omission of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can be considered in many postmenopausal patients with small luminal breast cancer, particularly when axillary ultrasound is negative. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently aiming at eliminating the remaining indications for ALND and also establishing omission of SLNB in a broader patient population. The movement to deescalate axillary staging is in part because of the association between ALND and lymphedema, which is swelling of an extremity because of lymphatic damage and obstructed lymphatic drainage. To reduce the risk of developing this condition, patients undergoing ALND can undergo reverse mapping of the axilla and immediate reconstruction or bypass of the lymphatics from the involved extremity. Decongestion and compression are the foundation of conservative treatment for established lymphedema, while lymphovenous bypass and lymph node transfer are surgical procedures to address the physiologic dysfunction. Radiotherapy is an essential component of breast locoregional therapy: more than three decades of radiation research has optimized treatment according to patient's risk of local recurrence while substantially reducing the number of treatment visits. High-quality RCTs have shown the efficacy and safety of hypofractionation-more than 2Gy radiation dose per treatment (fraction)-significantly reducing the burden of radiotherapy treatment for many patients with breast cancer. In 2024, guidelines recommend no more than 15-16 fractions for whole-breast and nodal radiotherapy, with some recommending five fractions for whole-breast radiotherapy. In addition, simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) has been shown to be noninferior to sequential boost with regards to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with similar or reduced long-term side effects, also reducing overall treatment length. Further RCTs are underway investigating other indications for five fractions, including SIB and regional node irradiation, such that, in future, it may be possible for the majority of breast radiotherapy patients to be treated with a 1-week course. This manuscript serves to outline the latest updates on axillary surgical staging, lymphatic surgery, and evidence-based radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

Safety and Tolerability of Online Adaptive High-Field Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiotherapy.

Importance: In 2018, the first online adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system using a 1.5-T MR-equipped linear accelerator (1.5-T MR-Linac) was clinically introduced. This system enables online adaptive radiotherapy, in which the radiation plan is adapted to size and shape changes of targets at each treatment session based on daily MR-visualized anatomy. Objective: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and technical feasibility of treatment with a 1.5-T MR-Linac, specifically focusing on the subset of patients treated with an online adaptive strategy (ie, the adapt-to-shape [ATS] approach). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults with solid tumors treated with a 1.5-T MR-Linac enrolled in Multi Outcome Evaluation for Radiation Therapy Using the MR-Linac (MOMENTUM), a large prospective international study of MRgRT between February 2019 and October 2021. Included were adults with solid tumors treated with a 1.5-T MR-Linac. Data were collected in Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the US. Data were analyzed in August 2023. Exposure: All patients underwent MRgRT using a 1.5-T MR-Linac. Radiation prescriptions were consistent with institutional standards of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patterns of care, tolerability, and technical feasibility (ie, treatment completed as planned). Acute high-grade radiotherapy-related toxic effects (ie, grade 3 or higher toxic effects according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0) occurring within the first 3 months after treatment delivery. Results: In total, 1793 treatment courses (1772 patients) were included (median patient age, 69 years [range, 22-91 years]; 1384 male [77.2%]). Among 41 different treatment sites, common sites were prostate (745 [41.6%]), metastatic lymph nodes (233 [13.0%]), and brain (189 [10.5%]). ATS was used in 1050 courses (58.6%). MRgRT was completed as planned in 1720 treatment courses (95.9%). Patient withdrawal caused 5 patients (0.3%) to discontinue treatment. The incidence of radiotherapy-related grade 3 toxic effects was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.9%-2.0%) in the entire cohort and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.0%) in the subset of patients treated with ATS. There were no radiotherapy-related grade 4 or 5 toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients treated on a 1.5-T MR-Linac, radiotherapy was safe and well tolerated. Online adaptation of the radiation plan at each treatment session to account for anatomic variations was associated with a low risk of acute grade 3 toxic effects.

One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT.

Background: FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial. Design: Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs. Sub-studies: Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling. Limitations: A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied. Participants: Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies. Results: Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy. Interpretation: Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Future work: Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported. Trial registration: FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patients diagnosed with early breast cancer are often recommended to have radiotherapy after surgery because research has shown that it lowers the risk of the cancer returning. However, it may cause some short- and long-term side effects. Previous clinical trials showed that the same, or even better, outcomes with a lower total dose of radiotherapy given in fewer, larger daily doses compared with older historical treatment schedules. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded FAST-Forward Trial aimed to see whether the number of doses could be reduced further without reducing the beneficial effects of radiotherapy. Between November 2011 and June 2014, 4096 patients agreed to take part in the FAST-Forward Main Trial testing three schedules of radiotherapy to the breast. Standard treatment given on 15 days over 3 weeks (Control Group) was compared with two different lower dose schedules where treatment was given on 5 days over 1 week (lower dose Test Groups). An additional 469 patients entered a sub-study where the gland area under the arm also received radiotherapy (Nodal Sub-Study). Main Trial 5-year results reported in April 2020 showed that the number of patients whose cancer had returned in the treated breast was low in all groups: around 2 in 100 (2.1%) for the Control Group, and 1.7% in the higher dose and 1.4% in the lower dose Test Groups. The majority of reported side effects assessed by patients and doctors up to 5 years after radiotherapy were mild for all treatment groups. Patients in the Control Group and in the lower dose Test Group experienced similar levels of side effects. More side effects were reported in the higher dose Test Group, although differences were small. Overall, the FAST-Forward findings suggest that the lower dose 1-week schedule gave similar results in terms of the cancer returning and side effects to the standard 3-week treatment and this schedule can now be used to help treat future patients.

Safety profile of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors with concurrent radiation therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the standard of care for hormone receptor-positive (HR + ) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer, improving survival outcomes compared to endocrine therapy alone. Abemaciclib and ribociclib, in combination with endocrine therapy, have demonstrated significant benefits in invasive disease-free survival for high-risk HR+/HER2- early breast cancer patients. Each CDK4/6i-palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib-exhibits distinct toxicity profiles. Radiation therapy (RT) can be delivered with a palliative or ablative intent, particularly using stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease. However, pivotal randomized trials lack information on concomitant CDK4/6i and RT, and existing preclinical and clinical data on the potential combined toxicities are limited and conflicting. As part of a broader effort to establish international consensus recommendations for integrating RT and targeted agents in breast cancer treatment, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety profile of combining CDK4/6i with palliative and ablative RT in both metastatic and early breast cancer settings.

Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy in early breast cancer (IMPORT HIGH): a multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A tumour-bed boost delivered after whole-breast radiotherapy increases local cancer-control rates but requires more patient visits and can increase breast hardness. IMPORT HIGH tested simultaneous integrated boost against sequential boost with the aim of reducing treatment duration while maintaining excellent local control and similar or reduced toxicity. METHODS: IMPORT HIGH is a phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial that recruited women after breast-conserving surgery for pT1-3pN0-3aM0 invasive carcinoma from radiotherapy and referral centres in the UK. Patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three treatments in a 1:1:1 ratio, with computer-generated random permuted blocks used to stratify patients by centre. The control group received 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast and 16 Gy in 8 fractions sequential photon tumour-bed boost. Test group 1 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 48 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. Test group 2 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 53 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. The boost clinical target volume was the clip-defined tumour bed. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR) analysed by intention to treat; assuming 5% 5-year incidence with the control group, non-inferiority was predefined as 3% or less absolute excess in the test groups (upper limit of two-sided 95% CI). Adverse events were assessed by clinicians, patients, and photographs. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN47437448, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 4, 2009, and Sept 16, 2015, 2617 patients were recruited. 871 individuals were assigned to the control group, 874 to test group 1, and 872 to test group 2. Median boost clinical target volume was 13 cm3 (IQR 7 to 22). At a median follow-up of 74 months there were 76 IBTR events (20 for the control group, 21 for test group 1, and 35 for test group 2). 5-year IBTR incidence was 1·9% (95% CI 1·2 to 3·1) for the control group, 2·0% (1·2 to 3·2) for test group 1, and 3·2% (2·2 to 4·7) for test group 2. The estimated absolute differences versus the control group were 0·1% (-0·8 to 1·7) for test group 1 and 1·4% (0·03 to 3·8) for test group 2. The upper confidence limit for test group 1 versus the control group indicated non-inferiority for 48 Gy. Cumulative 5-year incidence of clinician-reported moderate or marked breast induration was 11·5% for the control group, 10·6% for test group 1 (p=0·40 vs control group), and 15·5% for test group 2 (p=0·015 vs control group). INTERPRETATION: In all groups 5-year IBTR incidence was lower than the 5% originally expected regardless of boost sequencing. Dose-escalation is not advantageous. 5-year moderate or marked adverse event rates were low using small boost volumes. Simultaneous integrated boost in IMPORT HIGH was safe and reduced patient visits. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Proton Beam Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly available to patients with breast cancer. It achieves better planned dose distributions than standard photon radiation therapy and therefore may reduce the risks. However, clinical evidence is lacking. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review of clinical outcomes from studies of adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer published in 2000 to 2022 was undertaken. Early breast cancer was defined as when all detected invasive cancer cells are in the breast or nearby lymph nodes and can be removed surgically. Adverse outcomes were summarized quantitatively, and the prevalence of the most common ones were estimated using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies (1452 patients) reported clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Median follow-up ranged from 2 to 59 months. There were no published randomized trials comparing PBT with photon radiation therapy. Scattering PBT was delivered in 7 studies (258 patients) starting 2003 to 2015 and scanning PBT in 22 studies (1041 patients) starting 2000 to 2019. Two studies (123 patients) starting 2011 used both PBT types. For 1 study (30 patients), PBT type was unspecified. Adverse events were less severe after scanning than after scattering PBT. They also varied by clinical target. For partial breast PBT, 498 adverse events were reported (8 studies, 358 patients). None were categorized as severe after scanning PBT. For whole breast or chest wall ± regional lymph nodes PBT, 1344 adverse events were reported (19 studies, 933 patients). After scanning PBT, 4% (44/1026) of events were severe. The most prevalent severe outcome after scanning PBT was dermatitis, which occurred in 5.7% (95% confidence interval, 4.2-7.6) of patients. Other severe adverse outcomes included infection, pain, and pneumonitis (each ≤1%). Of the 141 reconstruction events reported (13 studies, 459 patients), the most prevalent after scanning PBT was prosthetic implant removal (34/181, 19%). CONCLUSIONS: This is a quantitative summary of all published clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Ongoing randomized trials will provide information on its longer-term safety compared with standard photon radiation therapy.

Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp study (PRADA): Aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction at one year.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal combination of radiotherapy and breast reconstruction has not yet been defined. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has deleterious effects on breast reconstruction, leading to caution amongst surgeons. Pre-operative radiotherapy (PRT) is a growing area of interest, is demonstrated to be safe, and spares autologous flaps from radiotherapy. This study evaluates the aesthetic outcome of PRT and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction within the Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp (PRADA) cohort. METHODS: PRADA was an observational cohort study designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PRT for women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and DIEP reconstruction. Panel evaluation of 3D surface images (3D-SIs) and patient-reported outcome measures (BREAST-Q) for a subset of women in the study were compared with those of a DIEP-PMRT cohort who had undergone DIEP reconstruction and PMRT. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 33 women from the PRADA study participated in this planned substudy. Twenty-eight women formed the DIEP-PMRT cohort (median follow-up 23 months). The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 'satisfaction with breasts' score at 12 months for the PRADA cohort was significantly better than the DIEP-PMRT cohort (77 [72-87] versus 64 [54-71], respectively), p=0.01). Median [IQR] panel evaluation (5-point scale) was also significantly better for the PRADA cohort than for the DIEP-PMRT cohort (4.3 [3.9-4.6] versus 3.6 [2.8-4] p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic outcome for the PRADA cohort was reported to be 'good' or 'excellent' in 93% of cases using a bespoke panel assessment with robust methodology. Patient satisfaction at one year is encouraging and superior to DIEP-PMRT at 23 months. Switching surgery-radiotherapy sequencing leads to similar breast aesthetic outcomes and warrants further large-scale, multi-centre evaluation in a randomised trial.

Cost-effectiveness of 5 fraction and partial breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer in the UK: model-based multi-trial analysis.

PURPOSE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of 4 radiotherapy modalities to treat early breast cancer in the UK. In a subgroup of patients eligible for all modalities, we compared whole-breast (WB) and partial breast (PB) radiotherapy delivered in either 15 (WB15F, PB15F) or 5 fractions (WB5F, PB5F). In a subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy, we compared WB15F to WB5F. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model to simulate lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each modality. This was informed by the clinical analysis of two non-inferiority trials (FAST Forward and IMPORT LOW) and supplemented with external literature. The primary analysis assumed that radiotherapy modality influences health only through its impact on locoregional recurrence and radiotherapy-related adverse events. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, PB5F had the least cost and greatest expected QALYs. WB5F had the least cost and the greatest expected QALYs in those only eligible for WB radiotherapy. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15,000/QALY, there was a 62% chance that PB5F was the cost-effective alternative in the PB eligible group, and there was a 100% chance that WB5F was cost-effective in the subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.

Primary radiotherapy and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction for patients with breast cancer (PRADA): a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.

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.

Patterns of Care, Tolerability, and Safety of the First Cohort of Patients Treated on a Novel High-Field MR-Linac Within the MOMENTUM Study: Initial Results From a Prospective Multi-Institutional Registry.

PURPOSE: High-field magnetic resonance-linear accelerators (MR-Linacs), linear accelerators combined with a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and online adaptive workflow, potentially give rise to novel online anatomic and response adaptive radiation therapy paradigms. The first high-field (1.5T) MR-Linac received regulatory approval in late 2018, and little is known about clinical use, patient tolerability of daily high-field MRI, and toxicity of treatments. Herein we report the initial experience within the MOMENTUM Study (NCT04075305), a prospective international registry of the MR-Linac Consortium. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were included between February 2019 and October 2020 at 7 institutions in 4 countries. We used descriptive statistics to describe the patterns of care, tolerability (the percentage of patients discontinuing their course early), and safety (grade 3-5 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5 acute toxicity within 3 months after the end of treatment). RESULTS: A total 943 patients participated in the MOMENTUM Study, 702 of whom had complete baseline data at the time of this analysis. Patients were primarily male (79%) with a median age of 68 years (range, 22-93) and were treated for 39 different indications. The most frequent indications were prostate (40%), oligometastatic lymph node (17%), brain (12%), and rectal (10%) cancers. The median number of fractions was 5 (range, 1-35). Six patients discontinued MR-Linac treatments, but none due to an inability to tolerate repeated high-field MRI. Of the 415 patients with complete data on acute toxicity at 3-month follow-up, 18 (4%) patients experienced grade 3 acute toxicity related to radiation. No grade 4 or 5 acute toxicity related to radiation was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 21 months of our study, patterns of care were diverse with respect to clinical utilization, body sites, and radiation prescriptions. No patient discontinued treatment due to inability to tolerate daily high-field MRI scans, and the acute radiation toxicity experience was encouraging.

Can patient decision aids reduce decisional conflict in a de-escalation of breast radiotherapy clinical trial? The PRIMETIME Study Within a Trial implemented using a cluster stepped-wedge trial design.

BACKGROUND: For patients with early breast cancer considered at very-low risk of local relapse, risks of radiotherapy may outweigh the benefits. Decisions regarding treatment omission can lead to patient uncertainty (decisional conflict), which may be lessened with patient decision aids (PDA). PRIMETIME (ISRCTN 41579286) is a UK-led biomarker-directed study evaluating omission of adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer; an embedded Study Within A Trial (SWAT) investigated whether PDA reduces decisional conflict using a cluster stepped-wedge trial design. METHODS: PDA diagrams and a video explaining risks and benefits of radiotherapy were developed in close collaboration between patient advocates and PRIMETIME trialists. The SWAT used a cluster stepped-wedge trial design, where each cluster represented the radiotherapy centre and referring peripheral centres. All clusters began in the standard information group (patient information and diagrams) and were randomised to cross-over to the enhanced information group (standard information plus video) at 2, 4 or 6 months. Primary endpoint was the decisional conflict scale (0-100, higher scores indicating greater conflict) which was assessed on an individual participant level. Multilevel mixed effects models used a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect for each step to adjust for calendar time and clustering. Robust standard errors were also adjusted for the clustering effect. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-one evaluable questionnaires were returned from 809 eligible patients (64%) in 24 clusters between April 2018 and October 2019. Mean decisional conflict scores in the standard group (N = 184) were 10.88 (SD 11.82) and 8.99 (SD 11.82) in the enhanced group (N = 337), with no statistically significant difference [mean difference - 1.78, 95%CI - 3.82-0.25, p = 0.09]. Compliance with patient information and diagrams was high in both groups although in the enhanced group only 121/337 (36%) reported watching the video. CONCLUSION: The low levels of decisional conflict in PRIMETIME are reassuring and may reflect the high-quality information provision, such that not everyone required the video. This reinforces the importance of working with patients as partners in clinical trials especially in the development of patient-centred information and decision aids.

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.

When the World Throws You a Curve Ball: Lessons Learned in Breast Cancer Management.

In the care of patients with operable breast cancer, there has been a shift toward increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy. There are benefits to neoadjuvant therapy, such as monitoring for response, as well as an increased rate of breast conservation and reduction of potential morbidity associated with breast surgery, including axillary management. Among patients with highly proliferative tumors, such as HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer, those with residual disease are at higher risk of recurrence, which informs the recommended systemic therapy in the adjuvant setting. For instance, in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy, there is a role for adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine for those with residual disease at the time of surgery. The same holds true regarding the role of adjuvant capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. With the added complexities of treating patients in the era of the COVID-19 outbreak, additional considerations are critical, including initiation of surgery within an appropriate time from completion of neoadjuvant therapy. National consensus guidelines on time to surgery must be developed to improve measurement and comparison across systems. In addition, there is emerging radiation treatment management research addressing a number of factors, including hypofractionation, role of proton beam therapy, safe omission of radiotherapy, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without drug combination. In this article, the multidisciplinary approach of treating patients with operable breast cancer is highlighted, with updates and future considerations described.

Voluntary versus ABC breath-hold in the context of VMAT for breast and locoregional lymph node radiotherapy including the internal mammary chain.

BACKGROUND: Deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) reduces radiation dose to the heart in patients undergoing locoregional breast radiotherapy. In the context of tangential irradiation of the breast/ chest wall, a voluntary breath hold (vDIBH) technique has been shown to be as reproducible as a machine-assisted breath hold technique using the active breathing co-ordinator (ABC™, Elekta, Crawley, UK, ABC_DIBH). This study compares set-up reproducibility for vDIBH versus ABC_DIBH in patients undergoing volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for breast cancer, both with and without wax bolus. METHOD: Patients with breast cancer requiring pan regional lymph node VMAT +/- wax bolus in breath-hold were CT scanned in vDIBH and ABC_DIBH. Patients were randomised to receive one technique for fractions 1-7 and the other for fractions 8-15. Daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed and registered to planning-CT using bony anatomy. Within-patient comparisons of mean daily chest wall position were made using a paired t-test. Population, systematic (∑) and random errors (α) were estimated. Intrafraction reproducibility was assessed by comparing chest wall position and diaphragm movement between consecutive breath holds on CBCT. RESULTS: 16 patients were recruited. All completed treatment with both techniques (9 patients with wax bolus, 7 patients without). CBCT derived ∑ were 2.1-6.4 mm (ABC_DIBH) and 2.1-4.9 mm (vDIBH), α were 1.7-2.6 mm (ABC_DIBH) and 2.2-2.7 mm (vDIBH) and mean daily chest wall displacements (MD) were 0.0-1.5 mm (ABC_DIBH) and -0.1-1.6 vDIBH (all p non-significant). Chest wall and diaphragm position was equivalent between consecutive breath holds in ABC and vDIBH (median difference 1.0 mm and 0.8 mm respectively, non p significant) demonstrating equivalent intrafraction reproducibility. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a simple voluntary breath hold technique is feasible in combination with VMAT (+/- bolus) and is as reproducible as ABC_DIBH with VMAT for the irradiation of the breast and axillary and IMC lymph nodes in breast cancer patients.