RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To report a primary objective clinical outcome of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence following accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with N0(i+) (single tumor cells or clusters <2mm) in sentinel lymph nodes. The secondary objective was to observe any incidence of ipsilateral breast failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 2004 and April 2016, a total of 747 patients were enrolled in one of two APBI (Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation) breast protocols (Phase II NCT01185145 and Phase III NCT01185132). Nineteen patients with N0(i+) disease were treated between February 2005 and December 2015. Patient eligibility included a primary invasive or DCIS tumor size <3 cm, N0(i+) disease, and margin width of >2 mm. All enrolled patients presented in this report had sentinel lymph node examinations. Clinical outcomes of ipsilateral breast, axillary and combined regional (breast or axillary) recurrences were analyzed. RESULTS: Median follow-up for all patients was 5 years (1-8 years). No patient experienced either ipsilateral breast or axillary recurrence. CONCLUSION: There has been scarce information/reporting of the treatment of patients with cytokeratin positive individual tumor cells N0(i+) with APBI. The authors have presented data which suggest that the successful outcomes of these patients might warrant further study.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To report a primary objective clinical outcome of ipsilateral breast recurrence following accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in women with triple negative and other high risk breast cancer (as described in 2017 ASTRO guidelines) (i.e., age 40-49, size 2.1-3.0 cm, estrogen receptor negative and invasive lobular breast cancer). Secondary objectives of axillary and regional failure as well as overall survival are also reported. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Patients from two clinical trials (NCT01185145, NCT01185132) were treated with 38.5 Gy IMRT or 3D-CRT APBI w/3.85 Gy fraction/BID fractionation for 10 fractions. Triple negative and other high risk patients (n=269) were compared to a total of 478 low risk patients which ASTRO defined as "suitable" for APBI. High risk patients, for the purpose of this study, were defined as those who possess one or more high risk criteria: triple negative (n=30), tumor size >2 cm <3 cm (n=50), HER 2+ (n=54), age range 40-50 years (n=120), ER- (n=43), and ILC histology (n=52). RESULTS: Median follow up was 4.0 years for all patients. No significant difference was found for this high-risk cohort at 5 years for ipsilateral breast, or regional recurrences. Axillary recurrence was significantly adversely impacted by triple negative and ER- statuses (p=0.01, p=0.04). There were significant correlations between triple negative type and axillary recurrence on multivariate analysis (p=0.03). Overall survival for all patients was unaffected by any of the high-risk categories. CONCLUSION: The data from this study suggests that women possessing high risk features are at no more meaningful risk for recurrence than other patients considered to be acceptable for APBI treatment. However, the finding of axillary recurrence in patients with triple negative breast cancer does warrant a degree of caution in proceeding with accelerated partial breast irradiation technique in this patient group.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The following analysis explores clinicopathologic factors and the 12-gene Breast DCIS Score test result in order to better define an appropriate DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) population eligible for APBI (accelerated partial breast radiotherapy). METHODS: This exploratory analysis aimed to retrospectively measure the association between the 12-gene Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score® assay (Redwood City, CA) and relevant clinicopathologic factors with locoregional recurrence in a pooled cohort of women treated with local excision and APBI on prospective phase II (NCT01185145) and phase III (NCT01185132) clinical trials. Univariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine whether there was an association between local recurrence and DCIS Score result risk group (≥ 39 vs < 39) and clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: This analysis included 104 evaluable patients (n = 18 from NCT01185145 and n = 86 from NCT01185132). The median age was 60 years (range: 40-79). Seventy-nine percent of patients were postmenopausal. The median span of DCIS was 10 mm (range 2-45 mm). Two-thirds of the cohort presented with necrosis (71%). The distribution of DCIS Score® results ranged from 0 to 82, with 69% of patients having a DCIS Score result < 39. The median follow-up time was 8.2 years in NCT01185145 versus 3.0 years in NCT01185132. There were 6 local ipsilateral breast recurrences. DCIS Score result was significantly associated with local recurrence in univariable modeling, hazard ratio = 10.3 (95% CI 1.7, 198.4); p = 0.010. None of the clinicopathologic characteristics resulted in any significant association with locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSION: The Breast DCIS Score assay demonstrated risk stratification in this cohort of patients treated with local excision and APBI pooled from two clinical trials. These results are consistent with those recently published utilizing whole breast radiotherapy. Due to the small number of local recurrence events and limited follow-up time, further investigations are needed to confirm findings.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare ipsilateral breast event (IBE) risks in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS) post-lumpectomy, as estimated by breast radiation oncologists, the Van Nuys Prognostic Index, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) DCIS nomogram, and the 12-gene Oncotype DX DCIS score assay. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Consecutive DCIS cases treated with lumpectomy from November 2011 to August 2014 with available DCIS score results were identified. Three radiation oncologists independently estimated the 10-year IBE risk. The Van Nuys Prognostic Index and MSKCC nomogram 10-year IBE risk estimates were generated. Differences and correlations between the IBE estimates and clinicopathologic factors were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were identified for inclusion. Forty-eight percent would have been ineligible for the E5194 study. The mean risk of IBE from the DCIS score assay was 12.4%, compared with a range of 18.9% to 26.8% from other sources. The mean IBE risk from the DCIS score assay was lower regardless of E5194 eligibility. The MSKCC nomogram and DCIS score assay risk estimates were weakly correlated with each other (P = .23) and were each moderately correlated with the other risk estimates (P = .41-.56). When applying the radiation oncologists' treatment recommendations based on their proposed risk cutoffs, evaluating risk according to the DCIS score assay led to the highest proportion of patients recommended excision alone. CONCLUSIONS: IBE risk estimates for this general community cohort of DCIS cases vary significantly among commonly available clinical predictive tools and individual radiation oncologist estimates. Surgical margins and tumor size continue to factor prominently in radiation oncologist decision algorithms. The differences found between the IBE risk estimate methods suggests that they are not interchangeable and the methods that rely on clinicopathologic features may tend to overestimate risk.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to examine patient self-assessment of breast pain and cosmesis between three-dimensional (3D-CRT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The secondary objective is to evaluate any relationship of treatment planning conformality of both cohorts to patient-assessed pain. Assessments were performed at interim 12, 24, 36, and 48 months with a final 5-year assessment. MATERIALS/METHODS: In total, 656 patients (3D-CRT n = 328; IMRT n = 328) were randomly assigned to either IMRT or 3D-CRT accelerated partial breast radiotherapy to 38.5 Gy in 10 BID 3.85 Gy fractions. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3 years. Multivariate analysis showed that pain severity significantly decreased from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit (<0.001 for both 3D-CRT and IMRT) in each cohort. There was significantly less pain at 2 (p = 0.002) and 3 years (0.045) in the IMRT arm versus the 3D-CRT arm when compared to the baseline pain level. There was no difference in patient-assessed cosmesis at any follow-up point; however, although MD-assessed cosmesis showed no difference from years 1 to 4, there was significantly better cosmesis for 3D-CRT versus IMRT (p = 0.047) at 5 years. There was a significant correlation between a maximum pain score and an increase in the CI100 (indicating less conformity) in the IMRT cohort (p < 0.01) and in the IMRT subgroup when the CI100 was ≤0.37 cohort arm (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the analysis of our primary objective we found that at 2 years, IMRT resulted in more interval improvement in breast pain after baseline when compared to patients treated with 3D-CRT planning. As seen in our secondary analysis, this may be due to the ability of IMRT to achieve higher conformality (as evidenced by lower CI values) resulting in less fibrosis. There were no differences in patient-assessed cosmesis or MD-assessed cosmesis for years 1-4; however, physician-assessed 5-year cosmesis was better with 3D-CRT.