PROMs following breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer: results from a prospective longitudinal monocentric study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of breast cancer includes many options and shared decision making is becoming standard practice. Within the context of treatment individualization, the omission of radiotherapy (RT) can be considered. It is thereby of great importance to correctly foresee the side effects attributed to RT. Data from longitudinal studies with contemporary techniques however are sparse. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and long-term aesthetic outcome (AO) related to RT in the breast-conserving therapy (BCT) setting for breast cancer over time. METHODS: Patients treated with BCT between April 2015 and April 2016 were prospectively included in the cohort. Evaluations were made at six time points: at baseline (before RT), during and at the end of RT, between 3 and 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after RT. AO was scored by the patient and by the BCCT.core software. Further PROMs were measured with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30/-BR23 and the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire BIBCQ. Patients were evaluated over 2 years. First, we assessed the evolution in time. Second, we tested the differences in mean scale scores of the PROMs between patients with a favourable and an unfavourable AO. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, unsatisfactory levels were already present for several scales. Most unsatisfactory PROMs improved up to 1 year after RT. Complaints of fatigue increased at the start but decreased up to a lower level than that at baseline up to 1 year after RT (mean difference (MD) 7.6, - 12.3, respectively). Cognitive functioning showed a small decrease at the start with no further significant decrease (MD - 4.73, - 0.21, respectively). Breast symptoms significantly increased during RT but decreased afterwards up to 2 years after RT to lower values than those at baseline and were then considered satisfactory (MD 15.6, - 19.7, - 4.1, respectively). AO scored as PROM associated with BCCT.core and with the body image measures. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that quality of life and body image are temporarily impaired due to RT. Around one third of patients score their long-term AO as unfavourable. These results should be discussed with the patient and could help in the decision making of the treatment plan and in the clarification of the patient's expectations.

Comparison of brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy boost in breast-conserving therapy: Patient-reported outcome measures and aesthetic outcome.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the probability of an unfavourable aesthetic outcome (AO) 2 years after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and evaluate the possible influence of brachytherapy (BT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and AO. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients treated with BCT starting April 2015 were prospectively included. Selection of the boost technique followed an in-house flowchart based on the depth of the tumour bed. An electron boost was performed for a superficial clinical target volume (maximum 28 mm under the epidermis), a BT boost was proposed in all other cases. Patients were followed-up for 2 years. AO was scored by the BCCT.core software and the patient. Further PROs were measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30, QOL-BR23 and the BIBCQ questionnaires. RESULTS: The analysis included 175 patients, 80 received a BT boost and 95 an EBRT boost. BT patients were significantly older; had a higher breast cup and band size, body mass index and surgical specimen weight of the wide excision; more seroma at baseline and less positive surgical section margins than patients in the EBRT group, and more patients drank alcohol. Cancer- and breast cancer-specific quality of life (QOL) and body image did not differ between the boost techniques over time. Although mean scores for breast symptoms and sexual enjoyment did differ significantly over time (p = 0.05 and < 0.01, respectively), the effect was due to differences before boost administration. Measured with BCCT.core, AO was unfavourable in 28% of patients 2 years after treatment (31% scored by the patient) and results were similar in the BT and EBRT groups. CONCLUSION: Using the presented flowchart (See Verhoeven et al. [16]), AO and PROs on QOL or body image up to 2 years after BCT are not influenced by the boost technique.

Discrepancies between biomarkers of primary breast cancer and subsequent brain metastases: an international multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Discordances between the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), expression between primary breast tumors and their subsequent brain metastases (BM) were investigated in breast cancer patients. METHODS: We collected retrospective data from 11 institutions in 8 countries in a predefined-standardized format. Receptor status (positive or negative) was determined according to institutional guidelines (immunohistochemically and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization). The study was subject to each institution's ethical research committee. RESULTS: A total of 167 breast cancer patients with BM were included. 25 patients out of 129 with a complete receptor information from both primary tumor and BM (ER, PR, HER2) available, had a change in receptor status: 7 of 26 (27%) ER/PR-positive/HER2-negative primaries (3 gained HER2; 4 lost expression of ER/PR); 10 of 31 (32%) ER/PR-positive/HER2-positive primaries (4 lost ER/PR only; 3 lost HER2 only; 3 lost both ER/PR and HER2); one of 33 (3%) ER/PR-negative receptor/HER2-positive primaries (gained ER); and 7 of 39 (18%) triple-negative primaries (5 gained ER/PR and 2 gained HER2). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of breast cancer patients with BM in this series had primary HER2-enriched tumors, followed by those with a triple-negative profile. One out of 5 patients had a receptor discrepancy between the primary tumor and subsequent BM. Therefore, we advise receptor status assessment of BM in all breast cancer patients with available histology as it may have significant implications for therapy.

Omitting radiation therapy in women with triple-negative breast cancer leads to worse breast cancer-specific survival.

PURPOSE: To examine locoregional recurrence (LRR) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy (ME) with or without radiation therapy (RT) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). MATERIAL & METHODS: We identified non-metastatic TNBC cases from a single institution database. BCT, ME with RT (ME + RT) and ME only were compared with respect to LRR and BCSS. Cox regression models were used to analyze the association between prognostic factors and outcome. RESULTS: 439 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 10.2 years (interquartile range 7.9; 12.4 years). Patients in the BCT (n = 239), ME + RT (n = 116) and ME only (n = 84) group differed with respect to age, pT, pN, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node dissection and chemotherapy administration. Ten-year LRR rates were seven percent, three percent and eight percent for the BCT, ME + RT and ME only group, respectively. pN was associated with LRR. In multivariable analysis LRR were significantly lower in the ME + RT group compared to the BCT and the ME only group (p 0.037 and 0.020, respectively). Ten year BCSS was 87%, 84% and 75% for the BCT, ME + RT and ME only group, respectively. pT, pN, lymph node dissection, lymphovascular invasion and the administration of chemotherapy were associated with BCSS. In multivariable analysis BCSS was significantly lower in the ME only group compared to the BCT group and the ME + RT group (p 0.047 and 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: TNBC patients treated with ME without adjuvant RT showed significant lower BCSS compared to patients treated with BCT or ME + RT and significant more LRR compared to ME + RT when corrected for known clinicopathological prognostic factors.