Variation in the Use of Boost Irradiation in Breast-Conserving Therapy in the Netherlands: The Effect of a National Guideline and Cofounding Factors

Patterns of care over 10 years in young breast cancer patients in the Netherlands, a nationwide population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Each year, around 600 young (<40 years) breast cancer (BC) patients are registered in the national NABON Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA). The aim of this study is to compare patient and treatment characteristics of young and older age BC patients over time with a focus on outcome of quality indicators (QIs). Furthermore, we analysed whether de-escalation trends of treatment can be recognized to the same degree in both patient groups.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From October 2011 to October 2020 all patients treated for stage I-III invasive BC were included. Tumour characteristics, treatment variables and outcome of QIs of two age categories young (<40 years) and older patient (≥40 years) were analysed.

RESULTS

In total 114,700 patients were included: 4.6% young patients and 95.4% older patients. Young patients more often presented with a palpable mass, higher stage, and triple-negative BC. Overall, young patients more often started with neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) (54.3% vs. 18.6%) and a greater proportion of the young patients retained their breast contour after surgery (73.5% vs. 69.3%). De-escalation trends such as decrease in axillary lymph node dissections and in the use of boost were observed. The omission of radiation treatment after breast conserving surgery was only observed in older patients.

CONCLUSION

Although this study shows that young women more often present with unfavourable tumours, therapeutic procedures are performed with a higher adherence to the QIs than for older patients and young women do benefit from some de-escalation trends to the same extend as older patients.

Transparency in quality of radiotherapy for breast cancer in the Netherlands: a national registration of radiotherapy-parameters

Background

Radiotherapy (RT) is part of the curative treatment of approximately 70% of breast cancer (BC) patients. Wide practice variation has been reported in RT dose, fractionation and its treatment planning for BC. To decrease this practice variation, it is essential to first gain insight into the current variation in RT treatment between institutes. This paper describes the development of the NABON Breast Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (NBCA-R), a structural nationwide registry of BC RT data of all BC patients treated with at least surgery and RT.

Methods

A working group consisting of representatives of the BC Platform of the Dutch Radiotherapy Society selected a set of dose volume parameters deemed to be surrogate outcome parameters, both for tumour control and toxicity. Two pilot studies were carried out in six RT institutes. In the first pilot study, data were manually entered into a secured web-based system. In the second pilot study, an automatic Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) RT upload module was created and tested.

Results

The NBCA-R dataset was created by selecting RT parameters describing given dose, target volumes, coverage and homogeneity, and dose to organs at risk (OAR). Entering the data was made mandatory for all Dutch RT departments. In the first pilot study (N = 1093), quite some variation was already detected. Application of partial breast irradiation varied from 0 to 17% between the 6 institutes and boost to the tumour bed from 26.5 to 70.2%. For patients treated to the left breast or chest wall only, the average mean heart dose (MHD) varied from 0.80 to 1.82 Gy; for patients treated to the breast/chest wall only, the average mean lung dose (MLD) varied from 2.06 to 3.3 Gy. In the second pilot study 6 departments implemented the DICOM-RT upload module in daily practice. Anonymised data will be available for researchers via a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) framework.

Conclusions

We have developed a set of RT parameters and implemented registration for all Dutch BC patients. With the use of an automated upload module registration burden will be minimized. Based on the data in the NBCA-R analyses of the practice variation will be done, with the ultimate aim to improve quality of BC RT.

Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02043-0.

Expert Discussion: Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy - Standard for All Indications?

n/a

Breast cancer

Breast cancer is still the most common cancer worldwide. But the way breast cancer is viewed has changed drastically since its molecular hallmarks were extensively characterised, now including immunohistochemical markers (eg, ER, PR, HER2 [ERBB2], and proliferation marker protein Ki-67 [MKI67]), genomic markers (eg, BRCA1, BRCA2, and PIK3CA), and immunomarkers (eg, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-L1). New biomarker combinations are the basis for increasingly complex diagnostic algorithms. Neoadjuvant combination therapy, often including targeted agents, is a standard of care (especially in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer), and the basis for de-escalation of surgery in the breast and axilla and for risk-adapted post-neoadjuvant strategies. Radiotherapy remains an important cornerstone of breast cancer therapy, but de-escalation schemes have become the standard of care. ER-positive tumours are treated with 5-10 years of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy, based on an individual risk assessment. For metastatic breast cancer, standard therapy options include targeted approaches such as CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, and anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy, depending on tumour type and molecular profile. This range of treatment options reflects the complexity of breast cancer therapy today.

Post-lumpectomy radiation therapy boost in breast cancer patients: evidence revisited

Purpose

Radiation therapy is an integral part in the management of breast cancer after breast conservative surgery. In selected patients at high risk for local recurrence (LR), a boost radiation dose is commonly applied to the tumour bed.

Methods

We performed a review of the English literature using PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar for published manuscripts addressing the effect of boost radiation in breast cancer patients, focusing mainly on LR and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of seven studies were included in our review. Most studies (6/7, 85.7%) showed a significant improvement in local control independent of age (hazard ratios ranging between 0.34 and 0.73), with the largest absolute benefit in younger patients. None of the studies, however, was able to demonstrate an improvement in OS.

Conclusions

With lack of sufficient studies addressing the role of boost radiation, individualised treatment decisions are recommended, taking into account the risk factors for LR, including tumour biology. Real-life data are sorely needed to better assess the role of tumour bed boost in the contemporary era.

Why is appropriate healthcare inaccessible for many European breast cancer patients? - The EBCC 12 manifesto

In Europe, inappropriate reimbursement and funding rules and regulations act as disincentives to best breast cancer care or, at worst, hinder best care. This problem was the focus of the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC) manifesto, discussed during the virtual conference. As patient involvement is indispensable in driving changes to clinical practice, Europa Donna the European patient advocacy group was closely involved in the 12th manifesto. Reimbursement policies have rarely evolved with advances in breast cancer care such as outpatient (ambulatory) care rather than inpatient admission, use of oral or subcutaneous anti-cancer drugs rather than day-hospital intravenous administration, oncoplastic surgery techniques to minimize mastectomy rates, breast reconstructive surgery, risk-reducing surgery for BRCA mutation carriers, or use of hypo-fractionated breast radiation therapy. Although each European country, region and centre will have to understand how their reimbursement policies may hinder best care and find their own solutions, the problems are similar throughout Europe and some solutions can be broadly applied. This manifesto is not calling for more funding or demanding changes that will result in more expensive care. Reimbursement, if better aligned with guidelines and optimal clinical practice, will deliver more cost-effective healthcare. This will release resources, support more equitable use of finite funding and resources, so allowing more European breast cancer patients to benefit from evidence-based treatment recommended by national and international guidelines.

In the Era After the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 'Boost' Study, is the Additional Radiotherapy to the Breast Tumour Bed Still Beneficial for Young Women?

AIMS

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22,881-10,882 trial showed significant benefit of a radiotherapy boost (RTB) in women ≤40 years in a pre-hormone therapy (HT) era. We determined how the use of HT and RTB changed in response to clinical guidelines and whether the benefit of routine RTB was still observed in the HT era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1996 and 2004, a provincial database identified all women ≤40 years with breast cancer who met the inclusion criteria of the EORTC trial. In total, 411 patients were classified into three eras defined by the guidelines: era 1 (discretionary HT, discretionary RTB); era 2 (routine HT, discretionary RTB); era 3 (routine HT, routine RTB). HT use, RTB use and cumulative incidence of local recurrence were calculated and compared across eras.

RESULTS

HT use increased after the first policy change from 13% to 75% for oestrogen receptor-positive patients (P < 0.01). RTB use also increased from 33% to 76% following the second policy change (P < 0.01). At 10 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was 12% in era 1, 6% in era 2 and 6% in era 3 (era 2 versus era 3, P = 0.92). For patients in the routine HT era (eras 2 and 3 combined) there was no significant difference in local recurrence between RTB and 'no RTB' patients (6% versus 7%, P = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of HT and RTB increased significantly after new practice guidelines. Introduction of the HT guideline was associated with a 6% improvement in local recurrence at 10 years. No improvement in local recurrence was associated with the introduction of the RTB guideline in the HT era. The routine use of a boost in unselected young women with negative margins should be re-evaluated in the current HT era.

What do patients and health care professionals view as important attributes in radiotherapy decisions? Input for a breast cancer patient decision aid

Background and aim

There is increased attention for shared decision making (SDM) when deciding on radiotherapy for selected patients with Stage 0–2 breast cancer. This study aimed to explore patients' and health care professionals’ experiences, decisional attributes and needs as input for the development of a patient decision aid to facilitate SDM.

Methods

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen breast cancer patients, being confronted with a radiotherapy decision one month to eight years earlier. Another fifteen interviews were held with professionals specialized in breast cancer care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and independently coded by two researchers, who agreed upon relevant issues.

Results

Most patients made their decision by weighing the advantages of radiotherapy, i.e. comparing the decrease in recurrence risk with and without radiotherapy, and disadvantages, i.e. possible side effects. Patients and professionals agreed that recurrence risks should be communicated, but not on how to deal with uncertainty. There was wide variation in which, and how, side effects were explained by professionals. The most common side effects mentioned by both patients and professionals were skin toxicity, fatigue and breast deformity.

Conclusion

Patients and professionals appeared to agree on what type of attributes should be communicated during SDM on radiotherapy, but how this should be done is up for discussion. To ensure the patient's voice these attributes and needs need to be incorporated in the risk communication and value elicitation part of the patient decision aid. The format in which the attributes are communicated should be critically evaluated.

•

Patients and professionals agree on most important attributes.

•

These attributes need to be used in a patient decision aid.

•

There is unwarranted inter doctor variation in informing about side effects.

•

Professionals differ in opinion how to inform patients about epistemic uncertainties.