IOERT versus external beam electrons for boost radiotherapy in stage I/II breast cancer: 10-year results of a phase III randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons (IOERT) boost could be not inferior to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost in terms of local control and tissue tolerance. The aim of the study is to present the long-term follow-up results on local control, esthetic evaluation, and toxicity of a prospective study on early-stage breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving surgery with an IOERT boost of 10 Gy (experimental group) versus 5 × 2 Gy EBRT boost (standard arm). Both arms received whole-breast irradiation (WBI) with 50 Gy (2 Gy single dose). METHODS: A single-institution phase III randomized study to compare IOERT versus EBRT boost in early-stage breast cancer was conducted as a non-inferiority trial. Primary endpoints were the evaluation of in-breast true recurrences (IBTR) and out-field local recurrences (LR) as well as toxicity and cosmetic results. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and patient's grade of satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2004, 245 patients were randomized: 133 for IOERT and 112 for EBRT. The median follow-up was 12 years (range 10-16 years). The cumulative risk of IBTR at 5-10 years was 0.8% and 4.3% after IOERT, compared to 4.2% and 5.3% after EBRT boost (p = 0.709). The cumulative risk of out-field LR at 5-10 years was 4.7% and 7.9% for IOERT versus 5.2% and 10.3% for EBRT (p = 0.762). All of the IOERT arm recurrences were observed at > 100 months' follow-up, whereas the mean time to recurrence in the EBRT group was earlier (55.2 months) (p < 0.05). No late complications associated with IOERT were observed. The overall cosmetic results were scored as good or excellent in physician and patient evaluations for both IOERT and EBRT. There were significantly better scores for IOERT at all time points in physician and patient evaluations with the greatest difference at the end of EBRT (p = 0.006 objective and p = 0.0004 subjective) and most narrow difference at 12 months after the end of EBRT (p = 0.08 objective and p = 0.04 subjective analysis). CONCLUSION: A 10-Gy IOERT boost during breast-conserving surgery provides high local control rates without significant morbidity. Although not significantly superior to external beam boosts, the median time to local recurrences after IOERT is prolonged by more than 4 years.

Cardiac serum marker alterations after intraoperative radiotherapy with low-energy x-rays in early breast cancer as an indicator of possible cardiac toxicity.

PURPOSE: To assess acute cardiac toxicity caused by intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with low-energy x­rays for early breast cancer. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed pre- and postoperative troponin I and NT-proBNP in 94 women who underwent breast-conserving surgery between 2013 and 2017 at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the University Medical Center Mannheim, Germany. Thirty-nine women received IORT using low-energy x­rays during breast-conserving surgery while 55 patients without IORT formed the control group. Demographic and surgical parameters as well as cardiac markers were evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences concerning age and side of breast cancer between the groups. Furthermore, no significant difference between the troponin I assays of the IORT and control groups could be found (preoperatively: 0.017 ± 0.006 ng/ml vs. 0.018 ± 0.008 ng/ml; p = 0.5105; postoperatively: 0.019 ± 0.012 ng/ml vs. 0.018 ± 0.010 ng/ml; p = 0.6225). N­terminal fragment of B­type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was significantly higher in the control group 24 h after surgery (preoperatively: 158.154 ± 169.427 pg/ml vs. 162.109 ± 147.343 pg/ml; p = 0.56; postoperatively: 168.846 ± 160.227 pg/ml vs. 232.527 ± 188.957 pg/ml; p = 0.0279). CONCLUSION: Troponin I levels as a marker of acute cardiac toxicity did not show any significant differences in patients who received IORT during breast-conserving surgery compared to those who did not.

A phase II study investigating the acute toxicity of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy as tumor-bed boost plus whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery in Korean patients.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns regarding local toxicity when IORT is applied in Asian women with a smaller breast volume than that of Western women. Trials are required to develop safety profiles for this technique. The aim of this trial was to evaluate acute toxicity after intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) with low-energy X-ray plus whole breast irradiation (WBI) in Asian patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This single-arm, single-institute, phase II trial investigated acute toxicity after completion of radiotherapy (targeted IORT followed by WBI) in Korean patients treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). In the conventional WBI arm from the TARGIT-A trial, the incidence of acute toxicity within 6 months was 15%. To prove the non-inferiority of the acute toxicity rate, 215 patients were required. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02213991). RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifteen women were enrolled, and 198 underwent IORT. In 33 patients, clinically significant complications during the acute period were noted. The incidence of acute toxicity was 16.7% (95% CI 11.5-21.9%). There were 29 patients with seroma needing more than 3 aspirations, 4 with wound infection, and 2 with skin breakdown. There was no difference in the rate of complications according to the tumor volume or the tumor-breast volume ratio. Advanced age and high BMI were risk factors for acute complications. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy using Intrabeam® is a safe procedure for Korean patients with breast cancer with an acceptable toxicity profile in the acute period.

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy tumour bed boost during breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) as a tumour bed boost during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer has been reported since 1998. We present its use in patients undergoing breast conservation following neoadjuvant therapy (NACT). METHOD: In this retrospective study involving 116 patients after NACT we compared outcomes of 61 patients who received a tumour bed boost with IORT during lumpectomy versus 55 patients treated in the previous 13 months with external (EBRT) boost. All patients received whole breast radiotherapy. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), breast cancer mortality (BCM), non-breast cancer mortality (NBCM) and overall mortality (OS) were compared. RESULTS: Median follow up was 49 months. The differences in LRFS, DFS and BCM were not statistically significant. The 5­year Kaplan-Meier estimate of OS was significantly better by 15% with IORT: IORT 2 events (96.7%, 95%CI 87.5-99.2), EBRT 9 events (81.7%, 95%CI 67.6-90.1), hazard ratio (HR) 0.19 (0.04-0.87), log rank p = 0.016, mainly due to a reduction of 10.1% in NBCM: IORT 100%, EBRT 89.9% (77.3-95.7), HR (not calculable), log rank p = 0.015. The DDFS was as follows: IORT 3 events (95.1%, 85.5-98.4), EBRT 12 events (69.0%, 49.1-82.4), HR 0.23 (0.06-0.80), log rank p = 0.012. CONCLUSION: IORT during lumpectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a tumour bed boost appears to give results that are not worse than external beam radiotherapy boost. These data give further support to the inclusion of such patients in the TARGIT-B (boost) randomised trial that is testing whether IORT boost is superior to EBRT boost.

Tumor Bed Boost Radiotherapy in the Conservative Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Review of Intra-Operative Techniques and Outcomes.

Conservative surgery is the preferred treatment in the management of breast cancer followed by adjuvant whole-breast irradiation. Since the tumor bed is the main site of relapse, boost doses are conveniently administered according to risk factors for local relapse to increase the efficacy of the treatment. The benefit of a radiation boost is well established and it can be performed by several techniques like brachytherapy, external radiation or intraoperative radiotherapy. Greater precision in localizing the tumor cavity, immediacy and increased biological response are the main advantages of intraoperative boost irradiation. This modality of treatment can be performed by means of mobile electron accelerators or low-photon X-ray devices. There is a lot of research and some published series analyzing the results of the use of an intraoperative boost as an adjuvant treatment, after neoadjuvant systemic therapy and in combination with some reconstructive surgeries. This review discusses advantages of intraoperative radiotherapy and presents the main results of a boost in terms of local control, survival, tolerance and cosmesis.

[Breast cancer radiation therapy: Current questions in 2023]. / Radiothérapie des cancers du sein : questions d'actualité en 2023.

Radiation therapy is a corner stone of breast cancer treatment as it has been shown postoperatively that it improves local control and overall survival. In recent years, multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies have evolved considerably for early-stage breast cancer, both surgically and in terms of systemic treatments or radiation therapy. Each of these developments affects other treatment components and open up new questions allowing even more personalized treatments. Essentially normofractionated a few years ago, breast radiation therapy is today very largely moderately or even ultra hypofractionated. De-escalation of the surgery of the axilla has changed the indications for lymph node radiation therapy keeping similar efficacy with reduced toxicity. Indications for radiation therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain based on pre-chemotherapy staging pending the results of ongoing randomized studies. The addition of a boost to the tumor bed significantly reduces the risk of local recurrence, but the magnitude of this benefit decreases with increasing age. The main risk factors for local recurrence are young age, the associated extended ductal in situ component, hormone receptor negative and high-grade status. The results of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) seem similar with normo- or moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy regimen.

Does the Use of BioZorb® Result in Smaller Breast Seroma Volume?

AIM: To evaluate the impact of BioZorb®, a 3D-bioabsorbable marker, on the tumor-bed boost volume and dosimetric parameters in adaptive boost planning for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records were reviewed for 51 breast-cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant whole-breast irradiation between January 2017 and October 2018. Changes in lumpectomy boost volume (LBV), doses to organs at risk, toxicity and cosmesis were compared between patients with and without BioZorb® Chi-square test and paired and independent t-tests were used for comparisons of variables. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 35.5 months. Mean LBV on initial CT (LBV1; 32.2 vs. 33.8 cc, p=0.74) and on boost computed tomography (CT) (LBV2; 25.3 vs. 24.8 cc, p=0.87) were similar with and without BioZorb® The mean decrease from LBV1 to LBV2 was 9.0 cc and 6.8 cc with and without BioZorb®, respectively (p=0.42). LBV1 was significantly positively correlated with a 20% reduction in LBV (p=0.02). Mean heart and lung doses on adaptive boost planning CT were slightly lower compared to initial planning CT in both groups. Acute breast pain was reported in 18/51 patients, 9 of whom had BioZorb® (p=0.24). Grade-2 pain was reported in 5/51 patients, 3 of whom had BioZorb® (p=0.11). Excellent or good cosmesis was reported in 36/41 patients. Fair cosmesis was reported in 5/41 patients, of whom 2 had BioZorb® (p=0.64). CONCLUSION: BioZorb® placement does not impact the tumor-bed boost volume nor the variation of seroma volume within the period of treatment. More data and longer follow-up are needed to identify a measurable clinical impact of BioZorb® placement.

Impact of molecular subtype on 1325 early-stage breast cancer patients homogeneously treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy without boost: Should the indications for radiotherapy be more personalized?

AIM: We report molecular subtype impact on 1325 early breast cancer (BCa) patients treated with whole breast hypofractionated (WBH) adjuvant forward-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (F-IMRT) without boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 02/2009-05/2017 1325 patients with pTis-pT3, pNx-N1aM0 BCa who underwent breast conservation surgery were treated with WBHF-IMRT in our institute, to a total dose of 40 Gy/15 fractions, without boost. Median age: 62 (interquartile range-IQR-:51.14-70.53) years. HISTOLOGY: 8% in situ carcinoma (ISC), 92% invasive tumors. Molecular subtypes (invasive tumors): 49.9% Luminal A, 33.1% Luminal B Her2 negative (-), 6.2% Luminal B Her2 positive (+), 3.6% Hormone Receptor (HR)- Her2+, 7.1% Triple negative (TNBC), and 0.2% HR+. Chemotherapy (CT) was prescribed in 28% of patients, hormonal therapy in 80.3%, monoclonal antibodies (MAb) in 86.8% of Luminal B Her2+ and 97.7% of HR- Her2+ patients. RESULTS: Median follow up was 72.43 (IQR: 44.63-104.13) months. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of local relapse-free survival (LRFS) was 97.8%, regional-(RRFS) 98.6%, loco-regional- (LRRFS) 96.9%, distant- (DRFS) 96.6%, disease-free survival (DFS) 94.8% and overall survival (OS) 95.5%. Considering molecular subtypes, 5-year LRFS was: 99.8% for Luminal A, 96.7% for Luminal B Her2-, 94.1% for Luminal B Her2+, 87.9% for HR- Her2+, 95.1% for TNBC and 99.1% for in situ carcinoma. CONCLUSION: While the overall estimated probability of LR within 5 years after WBHF-IMRT without boost is good (2.2%), molecular subtypes have a strong impact, despite MAb therapy in Her2+ patients, and CT for TNBC patients, and could be used as a parameter in deciding the boost prescription.

Adding Boost to Standard Neoadjuvant Radiation for Rectal Cancer Improves Likelihood of Complete Response.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic tumor response is a prognostic factor for survival in patients with rectal cancer. Standard neoadjuvant radiation (nRT) dosing for locally advanced rectal cancer ranges from 4500 to 5400 centigray (cGy), but it is unknown if tumor regression differs as a consequence adding a boost to the tumor bed. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) 2006-2016 was used to identify patients 18 years of age and older with clinical stage II and III rectal cancer who received pelvic nRT dosed between 4500 and 5400 cGy. Standard nRT dose (no boost, NB) and dose with boost (DWB) were defined respectively as 4500 and 5040-5400 cGy. Complete pathologic response (pCR) was defined as postoperative pathologic stage of zero. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between radiation dosing and pCR. RESULTS: The study cohort was 28,841 patients; the majority received DWB 22,701 (78.7%), while 6140 (21.3%) received NB. pCR was achieved in 3135 (14.4%) patients. On multivariate analysis, patients who received NB were significantly less likely to have complete tumor response (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.2-1.66, p < 0.001). Other factors significantly associated with pCR included insurance, facility type, tumor characteristics, clinical stage, and time between radiation and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first investigation demonstrating that standard dose neoadjuvant radiation for rectal cancer was associated with a lower likelihood of pCR compared with standard dose with boost. Past studies demonstrate that rectal cancer patient survival is strongly correlated with pCR. Prospective trials should focus on examining neoadjuvant radiation dosing to evaluate if DWB improves outcomes.

Adaptive radiation therapy of breast cancer by repeated imaging during irradiation.

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer among females and also a leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. A multimodality treatment approach may be utilized for optimal management of patients with combinations of surgery, radiation therapy (RT) and systemic treatment. RT composes an integral part of breast conserving treatment, and is typically used after breast conserving surgery to improve local control. Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the discipline of radiation oncology which allow for more focused and precise treatment delivery. Adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is among the most important RT techniques which may be utilized for redesigning of treatment plans to account for dynamic changes in tumor size and anatomy during the course of irradiation. In the context of breast cancer, ART may serve as an excellent tool for patients receiving breast irradiation followed by a sequential boost to the tumor bed. Primary benefits of ART include more precise boost localization and potential for improved normal tissue sparing with adapted boost target volumes particularly in the setting of seroma reduction during the course of irradiation. Herein, we provide a concise review of ART for breast cancer in light of the literature.

Efficacy of radiation boost after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer with focally positive, tumor-exposed margins.

Many patients with positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) undergo re-excisions that aim to remove residual disease from the breast, which brings a tremendous emotional burden in addition to financial consequences. We sought to determine whether re-excisions could be safely avoided without compromising local control and survival by using whole-breast radiation therapy (WBRT) with a tumor bed boost in patients with early-stage breast cancer with focally positive, tumor-exposed margins after BCS. All patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and/or invasive breast cancer (IBC) who had pathologically tumor-exposed margins following BCS, without re-excision and treated with WBRT with tumor bed boost between March 2005 and December 2011, were included. The radiotherapy consisted of WBRT at a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, followed by a tumor bed boost with an additional dose of 16 Gy in eight fractions. A total of 125 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria; of the 125 patients, 1 had bilateral breast cancer, resulting in 126 cases. Invasive disease was found in 102 (81%) cases and purely ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) disease in 24 (19%) cases. The 10-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) -free survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 95%, 92.5% and 96%, respectively. Patients with early-stage breast cancer who receive BCS and have focally positive, tumor-exposed margins can avoid re-excision by undergoing WBRT followed by a sufficient dose of tumor bed boost, without negatively impacting local control and survival.

Is tumor bed boost necessary in patients who achieved ypCR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast conserving therapy? (KROG 12-05 and 16-16).

PURPOSE: This multi-institutional study intended to investigate the effect of tumor bed boost in patients who achieved pathologic complete response (ypCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and breast-conserving therapy (BCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 180 patients who initially had lymph node (LN) metastasis and achieved ypCR (ypT0/isN0) following NAC and BCT from the 13 institutions of the Korean Radiation Oncology Group (KROG) 16-16 and KROG 12-05. The effect of tumor bed boost on loco-regional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) rates was analyzed. RESULTS: In all patients, five-year LRC, DFS and OS rates were 97.5%, 95.4%, and 99.4%, respectively. Tumor bed boost was performed in 158 (87.8%) patients. Advanced N-stage (cN2-3, p = 0.036), close resection margin (p < 0.001), and sentinel lymph node biopsy (p = 0.040) were unfavorable factors for DFS. Tumor bed boost was not a significant factor for LRC, DFS, and OS. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the benefit of tumor bed boost might be minimal in ypCR patients following NAC and BCT. Larger prospective studies are needed to address this issue.

Radiation therapy for young women with early breast cancer: Current state of the art.

A diagnosis of breast cancer at a young age, defined per guidelines as ≤ 40 years, represents a challenging situation requiring additional attention by the treating physicians including radiation oncologists and surgeons involved in the local treatment of these tumors. The present review aims at providing updated evidence on the state of the art about the available techniques and indications for radiation therapy in patients with early breast cancer, specifically focusing on young women. In addition, future perspectives including the ongoing trials and the potential impact of combined approaches with systemic therapies (such as immunotherapy) are reviewed. Major conclusions from this overview are that young women affected by invasive breast cancer seem to receive the greatest benefit from the boost on the tumor bed. Most young patients affected by ductal carcinoma in situ should receive postoperative whole breast irradiation (WBI). When regional node irradiation is considered, young age should be considered as a high-risk factor. Partial breast irradiation is not suitable for young patients and should be recommended within the context of a clinical trial. Importantly, robust data have already supported the efficacy and safety of hypofractionated-WBI schedules that should now replace standard fractionated-WBI as gold standard for all patients irrespective of their age. Finally, organs-at-risk sparing systems as strategy for prevention of radiation-related long-term toxicities should be strongly considered for these patients. Considering the lack of inclusion of young patients in several published trials as well as in some of the ongoing ones, robust evidence to counsel young breast cancer patients on the optimal radiation therapy approach is still lacking. Further studies and ad hoc subgroup analyses in this specific patient population are strongly warranted.

Evaluation of adaptive radiotherapy (ART) by use of replanning the tumor bed boost with repeated computed tomography (CT) simulation after whole breast irradiation (WBI) for breast cancer patients having clinically evident seroma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate adaptive radiotherapy (ART) by use of replanning the tumor bed boost with repeated computed tomography (CT) simulation after whole breast irradiation (WBI) for breast cancer patients having clinically evident seroma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with clinically evident seroma at the time of planning CT simulation for WBI were included. Two RT treatment plannings were generated for each patient based on the initial CT simulation and tumor bed boost CT simulation to assess seroma and boost target volume (BTV) changes during WBI. Also, dosimetric impact of ART was analyzed by comparative evaluation of critical organ doses in both RT treatment plannings. RESULTS: Median time interval between the two CT simulations was 35 days. Statistically significant reduction was detected in seroma volume and BTV during the conventionally fractionated WBI course along with statistically significant reduction in critical organ doses with ART (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest significant benefit of ART by use of replanning the tumor bed boost with repeated CT simulation after WBI for patients with clinically evident seroma.

Hippocampal sparing radiotherapy for pediatric medulloblastoma: impact of treatment margins and treatment technique.

BACKGROUND: We investigated how varying the treatment margin and applying hippocampal sparing and proton therapy impact the risk of neurocognitive impairment in pediatric medulloblastoma patients compared with current standard 3D conformal radiotherapy. METHODS: We included 17 pediatric medulloblastoma patients to represent the variability in tumor location relative to the hippocampal region. Treatment plans were generated using 3D conformal radiotherapy, hippocampal sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and spot-scanned proton therapy, using 3 different treatment margins for the conformal tumor boost. Neurocognitive impairment risk was estimated based on dose-response models from pediatric CNS malignancy survivors and compared among different margins and treatment techniques. RESULTS: Mean hippocampal dose and corresponding risk of cognitive impairment were decreased with decreasing treatment margins (P < .05). The largest risk reduction, however, was seen when applying hippocampal sparing proton therapy-the estimated risk of impaired task efficiency (95% confidence interval) was 92% (66%-98%), 81% (51%-95%), and 50% (30%-70%) for 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton therapy, respectively, for the smallest boost margin and 98% (78%-100%), 90% (60%-98%), and 70% (39%-90%) if boosting the whole posterior fossa. Also, the distance between the closest point of the planning target volume and the center of the hippocampus can be used to predict mean hippocampal dose for a given treatment technique. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate a considerable clinical benefit of hippocampal sparing radiotherapy. In choosing treatment margins, the tradeoff between margin size and risk of neurocognitive impairment quantified here should be considered.

Comparison of survival effects between using electron and modulated X-ray beams for boosting irradiation in breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiotherapy / 中华放射医学与防护杂志

Objective To compare the survival effects between using electron beams (EB) and modulated X-ray beams (XB) for boosting irradiation in breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiotherapy.Methods This study retrospectively included 485 breast cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery at Beijing Cancer Hospital.All patients underwent either EB or XB for tumor bed boost irradiation (10-16 Gy/5-8 fractions) after whole-breast irradiation of 46-50 Gy/23-25 fractions.Results Median follow-up time for the cohort was 96.04 months.Statistically significant increase of local recurrence free Survival (LRFS) was observed in XB group than in EB group.The 5-year and 10-year LRFS was both 98.4％ in XB group,as well as 94.2％ and 93.2％ in EB group,respectively (x2 =4.190,P ＜ 0.05).But there was not statistically significant difference in 5-year and 10-year overall survival (OS) between XB group(96.7％ and 95.8％) and EB group(94.9％ and 89.4％),respectively (P ＞ 0.05).The multivariate analysis showed that LRFS was significantly correlated with age≤40,positive pathological lymph nodes and positive expression of Her-2 receptor.But boost irradiation method was not independent prognostic factor for LRFS and OS (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions For cancer patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast postoperative radiation followed by a boost irradiation to tumor bed,XB irradiation was superior to EB irradiation in term of LRFS,yet no difference of OS was observed in both groups.

Local recurrence after whole breast irradiation combined with tumor bed boost in patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conservingsurgery: A Meta-analysis / 肿瘤

Objective: To conduct a Meta-analysis to analyze the short-term and long-term preventive effects of whole breast irradiation combined with tumor bed boost on short- and long-term local recurrence rates and local recurrence rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer in patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) after breast conserving-surgery (BCS). Methods: A computer-based online search of PubMed, China Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Embase and Cochrane Library was performed to include eligible studies in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for quality assessment of included articles. RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis. Results: A total of 14 non-randomized controlled trials (13 were cohort study, and 1 was nonsimultaneous controlled trial) involving 8679 patients with breast DCIS were included. The results of this Meta-analysis showed that no statistically significant differences between whole breast irradiation and whole breast irradiation combined with tumor bed boost in terms of 5-year local recurrence rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-1.82; P = 0.81], 7-year local recurrence rate (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.45-1.09; P = 0.11), ≥ 10-year local recurrence rate (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.79-1.15; P= 0.62) and the local recurrence rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.62-1.29; P = 0.55). Conclusion: As compared with whole breast irradiation, the whole breast irradiation combined with tumor bed boost in patients with DCIS after BCS can not obviously decrease the 5-year, 7-year and ≥ 10-year local recurrence rates, as well as the local recurrence rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer.

Repeated computed tomography scanning in assessing the change of tumor bed volume during whole breast irradiation in early-stage breast cancer after breast conservative surgery / 中华放射肿瘤学杂志

Objective To determine the change of tumor bed volume during whole breast irradiation by repeated computed tomography scanning and to analyze the dosimetric impact of boost-planning on different CT images. Methods From July 2008 to Jan 2009, sixteen patients with early-stage breast cancer underwent breast conservative surgery (BCS) were enrolled in the study. All patients received whole breast irradiation and tumor bed boost, no adjuvant chemotherapy was given. Two additional CT scans were acquired in addition to the planning CT ( CT1 ), one in the course of radiotherapy ( CT2 ) and the other before the boost (CT3). Tumor beds were contoured in all CT images. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy planning for tumor bed boost was done on CT1 and CT3 respectively. Results The mean tumor bed volume on CT1, CT2 and CT3 were 49.5 cm3, 25.6 cm3 and 22. 2 cm3 ( F = 5. 63, P = 0. 007 ),respectively. Further analysis found statistically significant difference between CT1 and CT2 ( q = 0. 03, P =0. 010), CT1 and CT3 ( q = 0. 01, P = 0. 004), but not between CT2 and CT3 ( q = 1.00, P = 0. 333 ). The average reduction of tumor bed volume from CT1 to CT3 was 43.4%. A reduction of 20% or above was found in 88% of the patients ( n = 14), 50% or above in 38% of the patients (n = 6). In the boost-planning, the volume of the ipsilateral breast receiving 100% prescribed dose (V100%) on CT1 and CT3 was 183.5 cm3 and 144. 5 cm3, respectively ( t = 3.06, P = 0. 008 ). Conclusions Volume of tumor bed is dynamically reduced in the course of whole breast irradiation after BCS, with more important reduction in the early weeks after the beginning of irradiation. A second CT scan before tumor bed boost is warranted.