Whole Breast Irradiation Versus Intraoperative Electron Radiation Therapy for Breast Conserving Therapy: A Large Mature Single Institution Matched-Pair Evaluation of True Local Relapse, Progression Free Survival, and Overall Survival.

PURPOSE: Comparative outcome data after intraoperative radiation therapy and whole breast irradiation (WBI) for breast cancer at >10 years median follow-up are rare. We present a mature, single-institution, matched-pair comparison reporting survival and relapse rates in patients treated with either modality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Complete data sets for 258 intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) patients treated between 2000 and 2010 were matched with 258 patients postoperatively treated with WBI by age/histology/tumor size, grading/lymph-node-status/hormone receptors/type of adjuvant therapy/surgical margins, and treatment date. Relapse at surgical intervention site was classified as true local recurrence (LR). All recurrences in the treated breast (any quadrant) were classified as ipsilateral recurrence (IR). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 157 months (12-251) for the IOERT group and 154 months (31-246) for the WBI group. Cumulative incidence of IR at 5, 10, and 15 years was 2.4%, 7.9%, and 12.7% for IOERT and 1.2%, 4.1%, and 5.0% for WBI (P = .02). Cumulative incidence of LR at 5, 10, and 15 years was 1.6%, 5.1%, and 8.3% for IOERT and 0.4%, 2.1%, and 2.5% for WBI (P = .02). No differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, second cancer incidence, or cardiac events were recorded in either treatment group. Outcome was better in the accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)-suitable group than in the APBI-unsuitable group (2009 criteria) (cumulative incidence of IR at 5, 10, and 15 years was 0% vs 7.3%, 6.1% vs 13.3%, and 7.3% vs 19.9% for IOERT and 0% vs 1.8%, 2.0% vs 3.9%, and 3.1% vs 3.9% for WBI) and in the revised APBI-suitable group than in the APBI-cautionary group (2017 criteria) (cumulative incidence of IR at 5, 10, and 15 years was 1.1% vs 6.4%, 6.2% vs 13.3%, and 7.8% vs 27.5% for IOERT and 1.7% vs 0%, 4.1% vs 4.4%, and 5.4% vs 4.4% for WBI). CONCLUSIONS: The IR and LR rate were higher after IOERT than after WBI for the American Society for Radiation Oncology suitable patient group, although without reaching statistical significance. Thus, IOERT could be an alternative to WBI upon stringent patient selection, but patients should be counseled carefully about the potential for increased IR rate with IOERT. Second cancer incidence and cardiac events did not differ between IOERT and WBI.

Whole breast external beam radiotherapy in elderly patients affected by left-sided early breast cancer: a dosimetric comparison between two simple free-breathing techniques.

BACKGROUND: Elderly breast cancer patients are frequently affected by significant comorbidities that make sophisticated radiotherapy treatments particularly challenging. AIMS: We dosimetrically analyzed two different simple free-breathing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques for the hypofractionated treatment of the left breast in elderly patients with a low compliance, to compare target coverage, and heart and left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) sparing. METHODS: We developed radiation plans for 24 elderly patients using 3D conformal (3DCRT) field-in-field tangential technique and intensity-modulated (IMRT) tangential beam technique. Dose-Volume-Histograms (DVHs) were used to provide a quantitative comparison between plans. RESULTS: The median breast volume was 645 cm3. IMRT and 3DCRT plans comparison demonstrated no significant differences in terms of organ sparing for the heart. Regarding LADCA, mean dose (10.3 ± 9.5 Gy vs 11.9 ± 9.6 Gy, p = 0.0003), maximum dose (26.1 ± 16.1 Gy vs 29.1 ± 16.1 Gy, p = 0.004) and V17 Gy (21.5% ± 26.9% vs 25.0% ± 27.2%, p = 0.002) significantly decreased using IMRT compared with 3DCRT. IMRT plans showed a better target coverage compared with 3DCRT (0.91 ± 0.05 vs 0.93 ± 0.04, p = 0.05). DISCUSSION: Comparing the two different EBRT techniques, we demonstrated few, although substantial, dosimetric differences in terms of doses to the organs at risk characterized by a statistically significant dose reduction of LADCA in the IMRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with a low compliance to treatment might benefit from 3DCRT with field-in-field tangential arrangement or from a simple IMRT approach. IMRT should be preferred.

Is multidisciplinary management possible in the treatment of lung cancer? A report from three Italian meetings.

PURPOSE: To report criticisms and barriers to the "real-life" application of international guidelines and recent developments in the management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Italy. METHODS: Three 2-day courses were organized. During the first day, experts in different fields of thoracic oncology gave their lecture on diagnosis and therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. During the second day, all participants were divided into four groups to discuss on a clinical case as a multidisciplinary team (MDT). The aim was to stimulate the discussion on practical issues in the management of NSCLC patients in the real-life practice. RESULTS: A total of 196 physicians were involved in the courses as learners. Invasive diagnosis of nodal disease for staging purposes, a priori definition of "surgical resectability" and a regular MDT with all crucial participants available were the three main key points identified for a good management of these patients. The main barriers to the clinical application of a good diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the patient were the absence of a regular and complete MDT in the South and Centre of Italy, while in the North of Italy, time for discussion of clinical cases in the MDT and waiting lists for staging and therapeutic interventions were deemed as the major concerns. CONCLUSION: The meetings showed that diagnosis and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC are still extremely variable between different Italian regions. Logistic issues, waiting lists, paucity of well-trained staff and expertise seem to be the main barriers to international guidelines application.