|
1
|
Sato K, Fuchikami H, Takeda N, Natsume N, Kato M. Long-term local control and cosmesis of perioperative interstitial brachytherapy for partial breast irradiation following breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer 2025; 32:447-455. [PMID: 39907906 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-025-01674-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2024] [Accepted: 01/28/2025] [Indexed: 02/06/2025]
Abstract
PURPOSE Multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy (MIB) is an established technique of partial breast irradiation (PBI). However, postoperative catheter implant is an invasive, inconvenient, and skillful procedure. In this study, local control and cosmesis of perioperative interstitial brachytherapy (PIB) by intraoperative catheter implant were evaluated by comparing with those of whole breast irradiation (WBI) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS Between October 2007 and August 2019, consequent patients who underwent either PIB or WBI following BCS were included. In general, additional indications for PIB to WBI included age ≥ 40 years, tumor ≤ 3 cm, and pN0 or pNmi. WBI was initiated with a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, whereas PBI was delivered immediately following BCS at 32 Gy in eight fractions. Local recurrence (LR) was the primary endpoint, and subjective and objective cosmetic outcomes at 5 years using the Harvard Cosmesis Scale and BCCT.core software, respectively, were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS During the 10-year follow-up, the crude rate of LR was 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-5.4) in 577 patients receiving PIB and 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.6) in 241 patients receiving WBI (P = 0.73). The 5- and 10-year LR-free survival rates in the PBI and WBI cohorts were 97.9% versus 97.9% and 95.4% versus 96.8%, respectively (P = 0.64). Multivariate analysis selected age < 50 years as an independent risk factor for LR. Excellent or good cosmesis in the PBI and WBI cohorts assessed by subjective and objective measures was 89.5% versus 84.5% (P = 0.26) and 83.7% versus 68.1% (P < 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Although this study was based on a retrospective chart review in a single institution, the largest series of data with a long follow-up suggested that acceptable local tumor control and cosmesis were achieved following PIB compared with WBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazuhiko Sato
- Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Hiromi Fuchikami
- Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Naoko Takeda
- Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Nana Natsume
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masahiro Kato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Sato K, Fuchikami H, Takeda N, Natsume N, Kato M. Preliminary report on ultrashort perioperative partial-breast irradiation with multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2024; 31:382-390. [PMID: 38363473 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-024-01546-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 02/17/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Perioperative partial-breast irradiation (PBI) with multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy (MIB) is less invasive and more convenient than postoperative one. This study aimed to compare ultrashort perioperative MIB-PBI (uPBI) and conventional perioperative MIB-PBI (cPBI) performed during the same period of time. METHODS Inclusion criteria of the study were patients aged ≥ 40 years and those with T0-2 (≤ 3 cm), N0-mi, and negative margins on mammography. The locoregional recurrence (LRR) and toxicity rates were compared between uPBI at a dose of 25.2 Gy in four fractions and cPBI at a dose of 32 Gy in eight fractions. RESULTS In total, 198 patients (151 with uPBI and 47 with cPBI) were evaluated. At a median follow-up of 20.1 months, one (0.66%) patient in the uPBI group had LRR. The 2-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence-free survival rates of the uPBI and cPBI groups were 98.7% and 100%, respectively. The highest toxicity grades were grade 1 in 23 (15.2%) and grade 2 in 2 (1.3%) patients in the uPBI group, and grade 1 in 8 (17.0%) and grade 2 in 1 (2.1%) patient in the cPBI group. None of the patients in the two groups presented with grade 3 and higher toxicities. The toxicity rates between the two groups did not significantly differ. Further, 22 (14.6%) patients in the uPBI group and 8 (17.0%) in the cPBI group, and 3 (2.0%) patients in the uPBI group and 1 (2.1%) in the cPBI had acute and late toxicities, respectively. The timing of toxicity development between the two groups did not significantly differ. CONCLUSIONS Although this preliminary report included a small sample size and had a short follow-up period, the local control and toxicity rates were similar between the uPBI and cPBI groups. Further research is warranted to investigate the ideal dose schedule of MIB-PBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazuhiko Sato
- Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Hiromi Fuchikami
- Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Naoko Takeda
- Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Nana Natsume
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masahiro Kato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Cozzi S, Augugliaro M, Ciammella P, Botti A, Trojani V, Najafi M, Blandino G, Ruggieri MP, Giaccherini L, Alì E, Iori F, Sardaro A, Finocchi Ghersi S, Deantonio L, Gutierrez Miguelez C, Iotti C, Bardoscia L. The Role of Interstitial Brachytherapy for Breast Cancer Treatment: An Overview of Indications, Applications, and Technical Notes. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14102564. [PMID: 35626168 PMCID: PMC9139312 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14102564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2022] [Revised: 05/19/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the female population. Adjuvant radiotherapy has become increasingly important as conservative treatment. Muticatheter interstitial brachytherapy is a type of radiation technique wherein the radioactive sources are directly implanted into or close to the target tissue and may be considered an extremely precise, versatile, and variable radiation technique. Literature data support muticatheter interstitial brachytherapy as the only method with strong scientific evidence to perform partial breast irradiation and reirradiation after previous conservative surgery and external beam radiotherapy. The aim of our work is to provide a comprehensive view of the use of interstitial brachytherapy, with particular focus on the implant description, limits, and advantages of the technique. Abstract Breast cancer represents the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the female population, despite continuing advances in treatment options that have significantly accelerated in recent years. Conservative treatments have radically changed the concept of healing, also focusing on the psychological aspect of oncological treatments. In this scenario, radiotherapy plays a key role. Brachytherapy is an extremely versatile radiation technique that can be used in various settings for breast cancer treatment. Although it is invasive, technically complex, and requires a long learning curve, the dosimetric advantages and sparing of organs at risk are unequivocal. Literature data support muticatheter interstitial brachytherapy as the only method with strong scientific evidence to perform partial breast irradiation and reirradiation after previous conservative surgery and external beam radiotherapy, with longer follow-up than new, emerging radiation techniques, whose effectiveness is proven by over 20 years of experience. The aim of our work is to provide a comprehensive view of the use of interstitial brachytherapy to perform breast lumpectomy boost, breast-conserving accelerated partial breast irradiation, and salvage reirradiation for ipsilateral breast recurrence, with particular focus on the implant description, limits, and advantages of the technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Salvatore Cozzi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-329-731-7608
| | - Matteo Augugliaro
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Patrizia Ciammella
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Andrea Botti
- Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.B.); (V.T.)
| | - Valeria Trojani
- Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.B.); (V.T.)
| | - Masoumeh Najafi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shohadaye Haft-e-Tir Hospital, Iran University of Medical Science, Teheran 1997667665, Iran;
| | - Gladys Blandino
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Maria Paola Ruggieri
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Lucia Giaccherini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Emanuele Alì
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Federico Iori
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Angela Sardaro
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70124 Bari, Italy;
| | - Sebastiano Finocchi Ghersi
- Radiation Oncolgy Unit, AOU Sant’Andrea, Facoltà di Medicina e Psicologia, Università La Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy;
| | - Letizia Deantonio
- Radiation Oncology Clinic, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Bellinzona, 6500 Lugano, Switzerland;
| | - Cristina Gutierrez Miguelez
- Brachytherapy Unit, Department of Radiation Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, University of Barcelona, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08908 Barcelona, Spain;
| | - Cinzia Iotti
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.A.); (P.C.); (G.B.); (M.P.R.); (L.G.); (E.A.); (F.I.); (C.I.)
| | - Lilia Bardoscia
- Radiation Oncology Unit, S. Luca Hospital, Healthcare Company Tuscany Nord Ovest, 55100 Lucca, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|