Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy for elderly patients with breast cancer: comparison of acute and late toxicities.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the differences between conventional fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated (HypoRT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in elderly women affected by early-stage breast cancer (BC) in terms of RT-related acute/late side effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between October 2011 and July 2015, 80 consecutive elderly BC patients were treated with IMRT for 5 weeks (40 patients) or HypoRT-VMAT for 3 weeks (40 patients). Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 70 years, early BC (pT1-2 pN0-1), no prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy and non-metastatic disease. For patients receiving IMRT or HypoRT-VMAT, a total dose of 50 Gy (25 fractions) or 40.5 Gy (15 fractions) was prescribed to the whole ipsilateral breast, respectively. All patients received a simultaneously integrated boost up to a total dose of 60 Gy for IMRT and 48 Gy for HypoRT-VMAT. Acute and late side effects were evaluated using the RTOG/EORTC radiation morbidity scoring system. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 45 months, acute skin toxicity was overall very low, with grade 1 in 25 cases (62.5%) of the IMRT group and 21 cases (52.5%) of the HypoRT-VMAT group, while grade 2 toxicity was reported in 10 IMRT patients (25%) and 1 HypoRT-VMAT patient (2.5%) (p = 0.001). Regarding late adverse events, only grade 1 skin toxicity was recorded. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that whole breast IMRT and HypoRT-VMAT are feasible and well tolerated in early-stage BC elderly patients and that HypoRT-VMAT is affected by lower risk of acute and late RT-related side effects.

EORTC Lung Cancer Group survey on the definition of NSCLC synchronous oligometastatic disease.

BACKGROUND: Synchronous oligometastatic disease (sOM) has been described as a distinct disease entity; however, there is no consensus on OM definition (OM-d) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A consensus group was formed aiming to agree on a common OM-d that could be used in future clinical trials. A European survey was circulated to generate questions and input for the consensus group meeting. METHODS: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group (LCG)/sOM-d consensus group survey was distributed to LCG, sOM-d consensus group, and several European thoracic oncology societies' members. RESULTS: 444 responses were analysed (radiation oncologist: 55% [n = 242], pulmonologist: 15% [n = 66], medical oncologist: 14% [n = 64]). 361 physicians (81%) aimed to cure sOM NSCLC patients and 82% (n = 362) included the possibility of radical intent treatment in their sOM-d. The maximum number of metastases considered in sOM-d varied: 12% replied 1 metastasis, 42% ≤ 3, and 17% ≥ 5 metastases. 79% (n = 353) stated that number of organs involved was important for sOM-d, and most (80%, n = 355) considered that only ≤3 involved organs (excluding primary) should be included. 317 (72%) included mediastinal lymph node involvement in the sOM-d and 22% (n = 70/317) counted mediastinal lymph node as a metastatic site. Most physicians completed sOM staging with brain magnetic resonance imaging (91%, n = 403) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (98%, n = 437). Pathology proof of metastatic disease was a requirement to define sOM for 315 (71%) physicians. The preferred primary outcome for sOM clinical trials was overall survival (73%, n = 325). CONCLUSION: Although consensual answers were obtained, several issues remain unresolved and will require further research to agree on a sOM-d.