Timing of Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Development Over 3 Years: Observations from a Large, Prospective Randomized Screening Trial Comparing Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (BIS) Versus Tape Measure.

BACKGROUND: The PREVENT randomized control trial monitored progression to chronic breast cancer-related lymphedema (cBCRL) following intervention for subclinical breast cancer-related lymphedema (sBCRL) assessed by bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) versus tape-measure (TM). This multi-institutional trial demonstrated a 92% risk reduction of developing cBCRL. This secondary analysis reviews the timing of sBCRL and cBCRL following breast cancer (BC) treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women at risk of cBCRL (n = 919) were screened regularly up to 36 months after BC treatment using either BIS or TM. Following diagnosis of sBCRL, patients underwent a 4-week compression sleeve intervention. The time in months from BC treatment to detection was reviewed at 3-month intervals. RESULTS: In total 209 patients developed sBCRL (BIS: n = 89, TM: n = 120) and were eligible for intervention. 30 progressed to cBCRL postintervention (BIS: 7, TM: 23). More than half of patients had measurements consistent with sBCRL within 9 months of BC treatment. Patients continued to have initial detections of sBCRL, regardless of screening method, with rates remaining consistent in years two and three (p > 0.242) post surgery. Additionally, 39 patients progressed to cBCRL without developing sBCRL or receiving intervention across the 3-year period. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of sBCRL detection demonstrates that patients continue to be at risk years after treatment and may continue to progress to cBCRL years after surgery. Early detection of sBCRL allows for early intervention decreasing the likelihood of progression to cBCRL. Patients should continue to be monitored for a minimum of 3 years following completion of cancer treatment. Specifically, careful targeted monitoring over the initial 9-month period is important.

The Clinical Utility of a 7-Gene Biosignature on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Updated Analysis of the DCISionRT® PREDICT Study.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is a standard treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A low-risk patient subset that does not benefit from RT has not yet been clearly identified. The DCISionRT test provides a clinically validated decision score (DS), which is prognostic of 10-year in-breast recurrence rates (invasive and non-invasive) and is also predictive of RT benefit. This analysis presents final outcomes from the PREDICT prospective registry trial aiming to determine how often the DCISionRT test changes radiation treatment recommendations. METHODS: Overall, 2496 patients were enrolled from February 2018 to January 2022 at 63 academic and community practice sites and received DCISionRT as part of their care plan. Treating physicians reported their treatment recommendations pre- and post-test as well as the patient's preference. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendation. The impact of the test on RT treatment recommendation was physician specialty, treatment settings, individual clinical/pathological features and RTOG 9804 like criteria. Multivariate logisitc regression analysis was used to estimate the odds ratio (ORs) for factors associated with the post-test RT recommendations. RESULTS: RT recommendation changed 38% of women, resulting in a 20% decrease in the overall recommendation of RT (p < 0.001). Of those women initially recommended no RT (n = 583), 31% were recommended RT post-test. The recommendation for RT post-test increased with increasing DS, from 29% to 66% to 91% for DS <2, DS 2-4, and DS >4, respectively. On multivariable analysis, DS had the strongest influence on final RT recommendation (odds ratio 22.2, 95% confidence interval 16.3-30.7), which was eightfold greater than clinicopathologic features. Furthermore, there was an overall change in the recommendation to receive RT in 42% of those patients meeting RTOG 9804-like low-risk criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The test results provided information that changes treatment recommendations both for and against RT use in large population of women with DCIS treated in a variety of clinical settings. Overall, clinicians changed their recommendations to include or omit RT for 38% of women based on the test results. Based on published clinical validations and the results from current study, DCISionRT may aid in preventing the over- and undertreatment of clinicopathological 'low-risk' and 'high-risk' DCIS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03448926 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03448926 ).

Bioimpedance spectroscopy for breast cancer-related lymphedema assessment: clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) represents a significant concern for patients following breast cancer treatment, and assessment for BCRL represents a key component of survivorship efforts. Growing data has demonstrated the benefits of early detection and treatment of BCRL. Traditional diagnostic modalities are less able to detect reversible subclinical BCRL while newer techniques such as bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) have shown the ability to detect subclinical BCRL, allowing for early intervention and low rates of chronic BCRL with level I evidence. We present updated clinical practice guidelines for BIS utilization to assess for BCRL. METHODS AND RESULTS: Review of the literature identified a randomized controlled trial and other published data which form the basis for the recommendations made. The final results of the PREVENT trial, with 3-year follow-up, demonstrated an absolute reduction of 11.3% and relative reduction of 59% in chronic BCRL (through utilization of compression garment therapy) with BIS as compared to tape measurement. This is in keeping with real-world data demonstrating the effectiveness of BIS in a prospective surveillance model. For optimal outcomes patients should receive an initial pre-treatment measurement and subsequently be followed at a minimum quarterly for first 3 years then biannually for years 4-5, then annually as appropriate, consistent with previous guidelines; the target for intervention has been changed from a change in L-Dex of 10 to 6.5. The lack of pre-operative measure does not preclude inclusion in the prospective surveillance model of care. CONCLUSION: The updated clinical practice guidelines present a standardized approach for a prospective model of care using BIS for BCRL assessment and supported by evidence from a randomized controlled trial as well as real-world data.

Outcome of different radiotherapy strategies after breast conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS lowers the relative local recurrence risk by half. To identify a low-risk group with the minimal benefit of RT could avoid side effects and spare costs. In this study, the outcome was compared for different RT-strategies using data from the randomized SweDCIS trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five strategies were compared in a Swedish setting: RT-to-none or all, RT to high-risk women defined by DCISionRT, modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9804 criteria, and Swedish Guidelines. Ten-year recurrence risks and cost including adjuvant RT and local recurrence treatment cost were calculated. RESULTS: The mean age at recurrence was 64.4 years (36-90) and the mean cost for treating a recurrence was $21,104. In the SweDCIS cohort (n = 504), 59 women developed DCIS, and 31 invasive recurrence. Ten-year absolute local recurrence risk (invasive and DCIS) according to different strategies varied between 18.6% (12.5-23.6%) and 7.8% (5.0-12.6%) for RT-to-none or to-all, with an additional cost of $2614 US dollars per women and $24,201 per prevented recurrence for RT-to-all. The risk differences between other strategies were not statistically significant, but the larger proportion receiving RT, the fewer recurrences. DCISionRT spared 48% from RT with 8.1% less recurrences compared to RT-to-none, and a cost of $10,534 per prevented recurrence with additional cost depending on the price of the test. RTOG 9804 spared 39% from RT, with 9.7% less recurrences, $9525 per prevented recurrence and Swedish Guidelines spared 13% from RT, with 10.0% less recurrences, and $21,521 per prevented recurrence. CONCLUSION: It seems reasonable to omit RT in pre-specified low-risk groups with minimal effect on recurrence risk. Costs per prevented recurrence varied more than two-fold but which strategy that could be considered most cost-effective needs to be further evaluated, including the DCISionRT-test price.

Current Diagnostic Tools for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) can have a significant impact on breast cancer survivors quality of life. The purpose of this review is to evaluate diagnostic tools for the assessment of BCRL. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple BCRL diagnostic tools are available, though older diagnostic tools have low sensitivity, limiting the ability for sub-clinical BCRL diagnosis while BIS and perometry have increased sensitivity and the ability to diagnose BCRL sub-clinically. Prospective studies have demonstrated such an approach coupled to early intervention is associated with low rates of chronic BCRL while a recently published randomized trial demonstrated that prospective surveillance with BIS coupled with early intervention reduced rates of chronic BCRL as compared to circumference measurements with compression garments. Prospective and randomized data support the use of prospective surveillance for BCRL. The strongest data available comes from the PREVENT trial and supports prospective BCRL surveillance with bioimpedance spectroscopy coupled to early intervention with a compression sleeve.

Ultra-Short Fraction Schedules as Part of De-intensification Strategies for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) represents a standard approach for most patients treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for early-stage breast cancer. The first-generation of adjuvant RT schedules delivered daily treatment to the whole breast over 5-7 weeks. Although efficacious, this presented patients with a protracted course of treatment, reducing compliance and quality of life. While hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) has become the standard, and part of the second-generation of RT regimens, it still requires 3-4 weeks. Concurrently, partial-breast irradiation (PBI) has also been explored as a technique to complete RT in a much shorter time period (1-3 weeks). There are now seven trials confirming the efficacy of this shorter treatment approach compared with standard WBI. In an effort to further reduce treatment duration, ultra-short WBI and PBI regimens have recently emerged as the third-generation of breast radiation schedules, allowing for the completion of treatment in 5 days or less. With respect to WBI, recent data from the FAST-Forward trial (which evaluated five fractions of WBI delivered in 1 week) demonstrated no difference in clinical outcomes at 5 years, with limited difference in toxicity, compared with hypofractionated 3-week WBI. Regarding PBI, published data on five-fraction regimens delivered in 2 weeks have also demonstrated comparable outcomes at 10 years, with reduced toxicities with long-term follow-up. This report will review additional ongoing studies evaluating even shorter courses of adjuvant RT treatment (one to five fractions), including single-fraction PBI or WBI.

Outcomes with Partial Breast Irradiation vs. Whole Breast Irradiation: a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized trials have been performed comparing partial breast irradiation (PBI) and whole breast irradiation (WBI) though controversy remains, including regarding differences by PBI technique. We performed a meta-analysis to compare results between WBI versus PBI and between PBI techniques. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify modern randomized studies listed in MEDLINE from 2005 to 2020. PBI trials were divided into external beam radiation and brachytherapy techniques, with intraoperative radiation excluded. A Bayesian logistic regression model evaluated the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and acute and chronic toxicities. The primary outcome was IBTR at 5 years with WBI compared with PBI. RESULTS: A total of 9758 patients from 7 studies were included (4840-WBI, 4918-PBI). At 5 years, no statistically significant difference in the rate of IBTR was noted between PBI (1.8%, 95% HPD 0.68-3.2%) and WBI (1.7%, 95% HPD 0.92-2.4%). By PBI technique, the 5-year rate of IBTR rate for external beam was 1.7% and 2.2% for brachytherapy. Rates of grade 2 + acute toxicity were 7.1% with PBI versus 47.5% with WBI. For late toxicities, grade 2/3 rates were 0%/0% with PBI compared with 1.0%/0% with WBI. CONCLUSIONS: IBTR rates were similar between PBI and WBI with no significant differences noted by PBI technique; PBI had reduced acute toxicities compared to WBI. Because studies did not provide toxicity data in a consistent fashion, definitive conclusions cannot be made with additional data from randomized trials needed to compare toxicity profiles between PBI techniques.

The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT® on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The role of radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Trials have not identified a low-risk cohort, based on clinicopathologic features, who do not benefit from RT. A biosignature (DCISionRT®) that evaluates recurrence risk has been developed and validated. We evaluated the impact of DCISionRT on clinicians' recommendations for adjuvant RT. METHODS: The PREDICT study is a prospective, multi-institutional, observational registry in which patients underwent DCISionRT testing. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, 539 women were included in this study. Pre DCISionRT testing, RT was recommended to 69% of patients; however, post-testing, a change in the RT recommendation was made for 42% of patients compared with the pre-testing recommendation; the percentage of women who were recommended RT decreased by 20%. For women initially recommended not to receive an RT pre-test, 35% had their recommendation changed to add RT following testing, while post-test, 46% of patients had their recommendation changed to omit RT after an initial recommendation for RT. When considered in conjunction with other clinicopathologic factors, the elevated DCISionRT score risk group (DS > 3) had the strongest association with an RT recommendation (odds ratio 43.4) compared with age, grade, size, margin status, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: DCISionRT provided information that significantly changed the recommendations to add or omit RT. Compared with traditional clinicopathologic features used to determine recommendations for or against RT, the factor most strongly associated with RT recommendations was the DCISionRT result, with other factors of importance being patient preference, tumor size, and grade.

Long-term primary results of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: a randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast-tumour recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. It is unknown whether accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) to only the tumour-bearing quadrant, which shortens treatment duration, is equally effective. In our trial, we investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lumpectomy compared with whole-breast irradiation. METHODS: We did this randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial (NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413) in 154 clinical centres in the USA, Canada, Ireland, and Israel. Adult women (>18 years) with early-stage (0, I, or II; no evidence of distant metastases, but up to three axillary nodes could be positive) breast cancer (tumour size ≤3 cm; including all histologies and multifocal breast cancers), who had had lumpectomy with negative (ie, no detectable cancer cells) surgical margins, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a biased-coin-based minimisation algorithm to receive either whole-breast irradiation (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group). Whole-breast irradiation was delivered in 25 daily fractions of 50 Gy over 5 weeks, with or without a supplemental boost to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 34 Gy of brachytherapy or 38·5 Gy of external bream radiation therapy in 10 fractions, over 5 treatment days within an 8-day period. Randomisation was stratified by disease stage, menopausal status, hormone-receptor status, and intention to receive chemotherapy. Patients, investigators, and statisticians could not be masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of invasive and non-invasive IBTR as a first recurrence was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, excluding those patients who were lost to follow-up, with an equivalency test on the basis of a 50% margin increase in the hazard ratio (90% CI for the observed HR between 0·667 and 1·5 for equivalence) and a Cox proportional hazard model. Survival was assessed by intention to treat, and sensitivity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00103181. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2005, and April 16, 2013, 4216 women were enrolled. 2109 were assigned to the whole-breast irradiation group and 2107 were assigned to the APBI group. 70 patients from the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 from the APBI group withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up at this stage, so 2039 and 2093 patients respectively were available for survival analysis. Further, three and four patients respectively were lost to clinical follow-up (ie, survival status was assessed by phone but no physical examination was done), leaving 2036 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome. At a median follow-up of 10·2 years (IQR 7·5-11·5), 90 (4%) of 2089 women eligible for the primary outcome in the APBI group and 71 (3%) of 2036 women in the whole-breast irradiation group had an IBTR (HR 1·22, 90% CI 0·94-1·58). The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 4·6% (95% CI 3·7-5·7) in the APBI group versus 3·9% (3·1-5·0) in the whole-breast irradiation group. 44 (2%) of 2039 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 49 (2%) of 2093 patients in the APBI group died from recurring breast cancer. There were no treatment-related deaths. Second cancers and treatment-related toxicities were similar between the two groups. 2020 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in APBI group had available data on adverse events. The highest toxicity grade reported was: grade 1 in 845 (40%), grade 2 in 921 (44%), and grade 3 in 201 (10%) patients in the APBI group, compared with grade 1 in 626 (31%), grade 2 in 1193 (59%), and grade 3 in 143 (7%) in the whole-breast irradiation group. INTERPRETATION: APBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to whole-breast irradiation in controlling IBTR for breast-conserving therapy. Our trial had broad eligibility criteria, leading to a large, heterogeneous pool of patients and sufficient power to detect treatment equivalence, but was not designed to test equivalence in patient subgroups or outcomes from different APBI techniques. For patients with early-stage breast cancer, our findings support whole-breast irradiation following lumpectomy; however, with an absolute difference of less than 1% in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some women. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older.

PURPOSE: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination. METHODS: We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

The Diminishing Impact of Margin Definitions and Width on Local Recurrence Rates following Breast-Conserving Therapy for Early-Stage Invasive Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal tumor-free margin definition and width following breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for early-stage invasive cancers has been evaluated in previous meta-analyses and guidelines. We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess how improvements in treatment over time have affected the impact of margins on local recurrence (LR) rates over time. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 38 eligible studies comprising 54,502 patients treated between 1968 and 2010. Inclusion criteria included patients treated with BCT and minimum follow-up of 50 months, pathologic definitions of margin status explicitly stated, and LR data in relation to margin status. Data were pooled using a Bayesian logistic regression model to evaluate the risk of LR in relation to both margin status and study enrollment periods. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.25 years. Absolute LR rates decreased over time for each margin width cohort, with maximum differences between negative margin groups of less than 1% for the most recent enrollment period. However, relative rates of LR between different margin groups remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: With an additional 22,000 patients compared with the previous meta-analysis, this updated meta-analysis supports the consensus guideline of "no tumor on ink" for the majority of patients. Additionally, while concerns exist regarding a benefit with wider margins from previous studies, the analysis demonstrates the impact of margin width on LR rates has declined substantially over time, with very small differences between the narrowest and widest margin groups in the most recent cohort. Hence, older studies appear to have limited value to inform current management guidelines.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation-Redefining the treatment target for women with early stage breast cancer.

Following breast conserving surgery, the standard of care has been to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy directed to the whole breast (WBI) over a period of 3-7 weeks. Over the past decade, increasing data have supported the concept that treatment to the whole breast may not be required in selected patients, allowing for the emergence of partial breast irradiation (PBI). Multiple randomized trials with 5-10 years of follow-up have been published documenting the safety and efficacy associated with PBI using multiple techniques. Questions that remain to be answered include (a) what is the optimal PBI technique for each clinical scenario, (b) are there additional patients that can be effectively managed with PBI approaches, and (c) are there different techniques/dose schedules that allow for further reduction in treatment duration and/or toxicities? Partial breast irradiation represents a standard approach for appropriately selected patients. PBI provides comparable clinical outcomes to WBI while allowing for a reduction in the duration treatment and the potential for reduced toxicities. Future studies may also help to better define which patients require no radiation, PBI, hypofractionated WBI or conventional WBI, based upon patient, clinical, pathologic features as well as potentially using tumor genetics.

Meta-Analysis of Local Invasive Breast Cancer Recurrence After Electron Intraoperative Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Electron intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) can be used during breast conserving surgery to treat early-stage invasive breast cancer. Using data from current clinical and observational studies, this study aimed to assess the impact of single-fraction electron IORT on local recurrence rates. METHODS: Studies on single-fraction electron IORT during breast conserving surgery were identified through a search of PubMed and Google Scholar, as well as through secondary referencing. Local recurrence rate was the main outcome of interest. A meta-analysis of proportions using a binomial distribution to model the within-study variability and a random effects model was conducted to estimate a pooled local recurrence rate. To estimate a 5-year recurrence rate, a single-sample Poisson-normal model was applied to model the probability of events occurring during a fixed period (60 months). RESULTS: The study identified 13 publications. The analysis demonstrated a pooled monthly local recurrence rate of 0.02% per person-month (95% confidence interval CI 0.00-0.06%) for the studies with a follow-up period shorter than 5 years, 0.03% per person-month (95% CI 0.02-0.06%) for studies with a follow-up period of 5 years or longer, and 0.02% per person-month (95% CI 0.01-0.04%) overall. Based on this model, the predicted 5-year local recurrence rate was 2.7% (range 1.9-3.7%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the published literature, the rate of breast cancer local recurrence after electron IORT was 0.02% per person-month, with an adjusted 5-year recurrence rate of 2.7%. These findings support the recent guidelines from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) supporting the use of electron IORT for low-risk patients.

Most patients are eligible for an alternative to conventional whole breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer: A National Cancer Database Analysis.

We evaluated the proportion of patients eligible for alternatives to standard whole breast irradiation (WBI) following breast-conserving surgery using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Using the 2016 dataset, Stage I-III patients were identified. Eligibility for hypofractionated WBI (HFRT), accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and endocrine therapy (ET-alone) was defined using eligibility from large clinical trials as well as consensus guidelines. For patients with pN0 breast cancer, 20.6% and 37.0% were eligible for ET-alone based on the CALGB 9343/PRIME-II trials, respectively. In terms of HFRT, 72.5% and 50.4% were eligible based on IMPORT LOW/ASTRO HFRT guidelines, respectively. Based on IMPORT LOW/GEC-ESTRO trial/ASTRO guidelines/ABS guidelines/GEC-ESTRO guidelines, 72.5%, 86.1%, 39.0%, 72.5%, 45.7%, respectively, were eligible for APBI. Of those who qualify for HFRT per ASTRO guidelines, approximately 90% were eligible for APBI and 50% for ET-alone. This analysis shows that a large proportion of patients with node-negative breast cancer are eligible for HFRT, APBI and/or ET-alone after breast-conserving surgery.

Utilization of bioimpedance spectroscopy in the prevention of chronic breast cancer-related lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: This analysis was performed to assess the impact of early intervention following prospective surveillance using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) to detect and manage breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). METHODS: From 8/2010 to 12/2016, 206 consecutive patients were evaluated with BIS. The protocol included pre-operative assessment with L-Dex as well as post-operative assessments at regular intervals. Patients with L-Dex scores >10 from baseline were considered to have subclinical BCRL and were treated with over-the-counter (OTC) compression sleeve for 4 weeks. High-risk patients were defined as undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), receiving regional nodal irradiation (RNI), or taxane chemotherapy. Chronic BCRL was defined as the need for complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 25.9 months. Overall, 17% of patients had one high-risk feature, 8% two, and 7% had three. 9.8% of patients were diagnosed with subclinical BCRL with highest rates seen following ALND (23 vs. 7%, p = 0.01). Development of subclinical BCRL was associated with ALND and receipt of RNI. At last follow-up, no patients (0%) developed chronic, clinically detectable, BCRL. Subset analysis was performed of the 30 patients undergoing ALND. Median number of nodes removed was 18 and median number of positive nodes was 2. 77% received taxane chemotherapy, 62% axillary RT, and 48% had elevated BMI. Overall, 86% of patients had at least one additional high-risk feature, 70% at least two, and 23% had all three. Seven patients (23%) had abnormally elevated L-Dex scores at some point during follow-up. To date, none has required CDP. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support prospective surveillance utilizing BIS initiated pre-operatively with subsequent post-operative follow-up measurements for the detection of subclinical BCRL. Intervention triggered by subclinical BCRL detection with an elevated L-Dex score was associated with no cases progressing to chronic, clinically detectable BCRL even in very high-risk patients.

Erratum to: Utilization of bioimpedance spectroscopy in the prevention of chronic breast cancer-related lymphedema.

In the original publication of the article, under the heading, Study limitations in the Discussion section, the second paragraph, fifth sentence was published incorrectly as "Patients with an L-Dex increase of ≥ 5.5 undergo…sleeve for 4 weeks".

Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Evidence-Based Options.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer are offered the option of either mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy (BCT) secondary to multiple randomized trials demonstrating equivalent long-term outcomes. Traditionally, BCT has used standard whole-breast irradiation (SWBI) after breast-conserving surgery, although several alternatives have emerged during the past few decades. METHODS: This report reviews key studies supporting each radiation technique and its respective eligibility criteria to assist clinicians in deciding which adjuvant radiotherapy options are appropriate for their patients. RESULTS: In the past, completion of SWBI required 5-7 weeks of daily treatments. During the past two decades, alternatives to SWBI have emerged including hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (3-4 weeks), accelerated partial-breast irradiation (1-3 weeks), and endocrine therapy alone. Multiple randomized trials have established the equivalence of these alternative strategies to SWBI for appropriately selected patients. Additionally, the current guidelines for patient selection demonstrate a large amount of overlap in the selection criteria for each technique. CONCLUSION: Clinicians must evaluate patient and pathologic criteria and engage in informed discussions with patients when determining which adjuvant radiation techniques are appropriate. Future strategies being explored include using tumor genetics to identify low-risk patients and switching from paradigms that omit radiotherapy to those that omit endocrine therapy.