Partial breast irradiation using targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit)

Soft-tissue simulation of the breast for intraoperative navigation and fusion of preoperative planning

Computational preoperative planning offers the opportunity to reduce surgery time and patient risk. However, on soft tissues such as the breast, deviations between the preoperative and intraoperative settings largely limit the applicability of preoperative planning. In this work, we propose a high-performance accurate simulation model of the breast, to fuse preoperative information with the intraoperative deformation setting. Our simulation method encompasses three major elements: high-quality finite-element modeling (FEM), efficient handling of anatomical couplings for high-performance computation, and personalized parameter estimation from surface scans. We show the applicability of our method on two problems: 1) transforming high-quality preoperative scans to the intraoperative setting for fusion of preoperative planning data, and 2) real-time tracking of breast tumors for navigation during intraoperative radiotherapy. We have validated our methodology on a test cohort of nine patients who underwent tumor resection surgery and intraoperative radiotherapy, and we have quantitatively compared simulation results to intraoperative scans. The accuracy of our simulation results suggest clinical viability of the proposed methodology.

Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiotherapy (RT). Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane Review, we investigated the delivery of radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation (PBI)) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypofractionated WBRT after breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 August 2020, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and three trial databases. We searched for grey literature: OpenGrey (September 2020), reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and published abstracts, and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding, that evaluated conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus WBRT. Published and unpublished trials were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BH and ML) performed data extraction, used Cochrane's risk of bias tool and resolved any disagreements through discussion, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for main outcomes using GRADE. Main outcomes were local recurrence-free survival, cosmesis, overall survival, toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis), cause-specific survival, distant metastasis-free survival and subsequent mastectomy. We entered data into Review Manager 5 for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs that enrolled 15,187 women who had invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in-situ (6.3%) with T1-2N0-1M0 Grade I or II unifocal tumours (less than 2 cm or 3 cm or less) treated with breast-conserving therapy with negative margins. This is the second update of the review and includes two new studies and 4432 more participants. Local recurrence-free survival is probably slightly reduced (by 3/1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 0 fewer) with the use of PBI/APBI compared to WBRT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.42; 8 studies, 13,168 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Cosmesis (physician/nurse-reported) is probably worse (by 63/1000, 95% CI 35 more to 92 more) with the use of PBI/APBI (odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.87; 6 studies, 3652 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall survival is similar (0/1000 fewer, 95% CI 6 fewer to 6 more) with PBI/APBI and WBRT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12; 8 studies, 13,175 participants; high-certainty evidence). Late radiation toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis) is probably increased (by 14/1000 more, 95% CI 102 more to 188 more) with PBI/APBI (OR 5.07, 95% CI 3.81 to 6.74; 2 studies, 3011 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of PBI/APBI probably makes little difference (1/1000 less, 95% CI 6 fewer to 3 more) to cause-specific survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.36; 7 studies, 9865 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found the use of PBI/APBI compared with WBRT probably makes little or no difference (1/1000 fewer (95% CI 4 fewer to 6 more)) to distant metastasis-free survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; 7 studies, 11,033 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found the use of PBI/APBI in comparison with WBRT makes little or no difference (2/1000 fewer, 95% CI 20 fewer to 20 more) to mastectomy rates (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 3 studies, 3740 participants, high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It appeared that local recurrence-free survival is probably worse with PBI/APBI; however, the difference was small and nearly all women remain free of local recurrence. Overall survival is similar with PBI/APBI and WBRT, and we found little to no difference in other oncological outcomes. Some late effects (subcutaneous fibrosis) may be worse with PBI/APBI and its use is probably associated with worse cosmetic outcomes. The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Skin dose assessment with treatment planning system (TPS) and skin reaction evaluation of early breast cancer patients treated via an intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) device

Purpose

To assess skin dose and incidence of skin reactions in early breast cancer patients treated via Intrabeam™ intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) device.

Materials and methods

In total, 250 breast cancer patients treated with a single fraction of 20 Gy using 50 kV photon were recruited. The applicator to skin distance (ASD) was measured before the initiation of the radiation and the skin dose in each patient was accordingly calculated based on the treatment planning system (TPS).

Results

The average skin doses calculated were equal to 7·91, 5·83, 3·96 and 2·14 Gy for 6–10, 10–15, 15–20 and 20–30 mm ASD values, respectively. It is noticeable that the skin doses could be lower than the TPS measurements up to 45%, mostly due to lack of backscatter radiation in breast tissue compared with the full scatter condition in the Zeiss water phantom. Finally, only three patients showed low-grade skin reactions 1 week after IORT. A review of the related literature also revealed the incidence of lower skin complications among patients treated via Intrabeam™ compared with MammoSite™ machine.

Conclusions

The Intrabeam™ TPS did not seem to be very reliable for accurate skin dosimetry. However, breast cancer treatment using Intrabeam™ could result in fewer incidences of skin reactions than MammoSite™ machine.

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

BACKGROUND

Based on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed - the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks.

DESIGN

The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurred before initial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurred after initial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world.

SETTING

Thirty-three centres in 11 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Women who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size.

INTERVENTIONS

TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%; p = 0.04; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%; p = 0.31; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%; p = 0.069; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%; p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%; p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%; p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%; p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8-9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs.

LIMITATIONS

The number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT.

FUTURE WORK

The analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiotherapy (RT). RT is given to sterilize tumour cells that may remain after surgery to decrease the risk of local tumour recurrence. Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane review, we investigated the delivery of radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation (PBI)) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypo-fractionated WBRT after breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialized Register (4 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 4 May 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 4 May 2015), CINAHL (4 May 2015) and Current Contents (4 May 2015). We searched the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (5 May 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (4 May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (17 June 2015). We searched for grey literature: OpenGrey (17 June 2015), reference lists of articles, several conference proceedings and published abstracts, and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding, that evaluated conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus WBRT. Published and unpublished trials were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BH and ML) performed data extraction and used Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool, and resolved any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager 5 for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs and studied 7586 women of the 8955 enrolled.Local recurrence-free survival appeared worse for women receiving PBI/APBI compared to WBRT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.35; six studies, 6820 participants, low-quality evidence). Cosmesis (physician-reported) appeared worse with PBI/APBI (odds ratio (OR) 1.51, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.95, five studies, 1720 participants, low-quality evidence). Overall survival did not differ with PBI/APBI (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09, five studies, 6718 participants, high-quality evidence).Late radiation toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis) appeared worse with PBI/APBI (OR 6.58, 95% CI 3.08 to 14.06, one study, 766 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Acute skin toxicity appeared reduced with PBI/APBI (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09, two studies, 608 participants). Telangiectasia (OR 26.56, 95% CI 3.59 to 196.51, 1 study, 766 participants) and radiological fat necrosis (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43, three studies, 1319 participants) appeared worse with PBI/APBI. Late skin toxicity (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.39, two studies, 608 participants) and breast pain (OR 2.17, 95% CI 0.56 to 8.44, one study, 766 participants) appeared not to differ with PBI/APBI.'Elsewhere primaries' (new primaries in the ipsilateral breast) appeared more frequent with PBI/APBI (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.51 to 10.41, three studies, 3009 participants).We found no clear evidence of a difference for the comparison of PBI/APBI with WBRT for the outcomes of: cause-specific survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.58, five studies, 6718 participants, moderate-quality evidence), distant metastasis-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37, four studies, 3267 participants, moderate-quality evidence), relapse-free survival (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.09, three studies, 3811 participants), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.25, two studies, 3553 participants) or mastectomy rates (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87, three studies, 4817 participants, low-quality evidence). Compliance was met: more than 90% of the women in all studies received the RT they were assigned to receive. We found no data for the outcomes of costs, quality of life or consumer preference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It appeared that local recurrence and 'elsewhere primaries' (new primaries in the ipsilateral breast) are increased with PBI/APBI (the difference was small), but we found no evidence of detriment to other oncological outcomes. It appeared that cosmetic outcomes and some late effects were worse with PBI/APBI but its use was associated with less acute skin toxicity. The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver of PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiation therapy (RT). RT is given to sterilize tumour cells that may remain after surgery to decrease the risk of local tumour recurrence. Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast RT may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane Review, we investigated the role of delivering radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation: PBI) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation: APBI).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypofractionated WBRT after breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (07 November 2013), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 11 April 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 11 April 2014), CINAHL (11 April 2014) and Current Contents (11 April 2014). Also we searched the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (07 November 2013) and US clinical trials registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (22 April 2014). We searched for grey literature: Open Grey (23 April 2014), reference lists of articles, a number of conference proceedings and published abstracts, and did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding and evaluating conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus whole breast RT. We included both published and unpublished trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (ML, DF and BH) performed data extraction and resolved any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager for analysis. BH and ML assessed trials, graded the methodological quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and resolved any disagreements through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs that had 2253 women. Two older trials examined RT techniques which do not reflect current practice and one trial had a short follow-up. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for our key outcomes due to risk of bias. Taken together with other GRADE recommendations, the quality of evidence for our outcomes was very low to low. For the comparison of partial breast irradiation/accelerated breast irradiation (PBI/APBI) with whole breast irradiation (WBRT), local recurrence-free survival appeared worse (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.45; three trials, 1140 participants, very low quality evidence). Cosmesis appeared improved with PBI/APBI in a single trial (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.72; one trial, 241 participants, very low quality evidence), but late toxicity (telangiectasia OR 4.41, 95% CI 3.21 to 6.05; very low quality evidence, 708 participants) and subcutaneous fibrosis (OR 4.27, 95% CI 3.04 to 6.01; one trial, 710 participants, very low quality evidence) appeared increased in another trial. We found no clear evidence of a difference for the comparison of PBI/APBI versus WBRT for the outcomes of: overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; three trials, 1140 participants, very low quality evidence), cause-specific survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.22; two trials, 966 participants, low evidence quality), distant metastasis-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 1140 participants, low quality evidence), subsequent mastectomy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.21; 258 participants, low quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.85; 258 participants, low quality evidence). We found no data for the outcomes of acute toxicity, new ipsilateral breast primaries, costs, quality of life or consumer preference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver of PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival.

METHODS

TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684.

FINDINGS

Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029).

INTERPRETATION

TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: recent advances and future prospects

Introduction. This article reviews current management strategies for DCIS in the context of recent randomised trials, including the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine treatment. Methods. Literature review facilitated by Medline, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Results. DCIS should be managed in the context of a multidisciplinary team. Local control depends upon clear surgical margins (at least 2 mm is generally acceptable). SLNB is not routine, but can be considered in patients undergoing mastectomy (Mx) with risk factors for occult invasion. RT following BCS significantly reduces local recurrence (LR), particularly in those at high-risk. There remains a lack of level-1 evidence supporting omission of adjuvant RT in selected low-risk cases. Large, multi-centric or recurrent lesions should be treated by Mx and immediate reconstruction should be discussed. Adjuvant hormonal treatment may reduce the risk of LR in selected cases with hormone sensitive disease. Conclusion. Further research is required to determine the role of new RT regimes and endocrine therapies. Biological profiling and molecular analysis represent an opportunity to improve our understanding of tumour biology in DCIS to rationalise treatment. Reliable identification of low-risk lesions could allow treatment to be less radical.

Ductal carcinoma in-situ: an update for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) is a heterogeneous entity with an elusive natural history. The objective of radiological, histological and molecular characterisation remains to reliably predict the biological behaviour and optimise clinical management strategies. Increases in diagnostic frequency have followed the introduction of mammographic screening and increased utility of magnetic resonance imaging. However, progress remains limited in distinguishing non-progressive incidental lesions from their progressive and clinically relevant counterparts. This article reviews current management strategies for DCIS in the context of recent randomized trials, including the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine treatment.

METHODS

Literature review facilitated by Medline, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

DCIS should be managed in the context of a multidisciplinary team. Local control depends upon adequate surgical clearance with margins of at least 2 mm. SLNB is not routinely indicated and should be reserved for those with concurrent or recurrent invasive disease. SLNB can be considered in patients undergoing mastectomy (MX) and those with risk factors for invasion such as palpability, comedo morphology, necrosis or recurrent disease. RT following BCS significantly reduces local recurrence (LR), particularly in those at high-risk. There remains a lack of level-1 evidence supporting the omission of adjuvant RT in selected low-risk cases. Large, multi-centric or recurrent lesions (particularly in cases of prior RT) should be treated by MX with the opportunity for immediate reconstruction. Adjuvant Tamoxifen may reduce the risk of LR in selected cases with hormone sensitive disease.

CONCLUSION

Further research is required to determine the role of contemporary RT regimes and endocrine therapies. Biological profiling and molecular analysis represent an opportunity to improve our understanding of the tumour biology of this condition and rationalise its treatment. Reliable identification of low-risk lesions could allow treatment to be less radical or safely omitted.

Oncological and aesthetic considerations of conservational surgery for multifocal/multicentric breast cancer

Conventional indications for mastectomy (MX) reflect circumstances where breast conserving therapy (BCT) could compromise oncological or cosmetic outcome. MX continues to be recommended for the majority of women with multiple lesions within the same breast. In this article, we review the oncological safety and aesthetic considerations of BCT in the context of multifocal (MF) or multicentric (MC) breast cancer. Literature review facilitated by Medline and PubMed databases. Published studies have reported divergent results regarding the oncological adequacy of BCT in the management of MF or MC disease. Earlier studies demonstrated high rates of local recurrence (LR) for BCT. More recent series have found BCT to be comparable to MX in terms of LR, distant failure, disease free and overall survival. Few studies have adequately evaluated cosmetic outcomes following BCT for MF or MC breast cancer. Contemporary oncoplastic techniques have extended the clinical utility of BCT and are of particular relevance to breast conservation in the context of MF or MC lesions. Appropriate case selection, preoperative oncological and aesthetic planning, satisfactory clearance of the surgical margins and adjuvant radiotherapy are of paramount importance. In the absence of level-1 guidance concerning the management of women with MF or MC disease, each case requires discussion with regard to tumor and patient related factors in the context of the multidisciplinary team. In selected patients with MF or MC disease, BCT is oncologically safe and cosmetically acceptable. Uniformity of practice and the establishment of a standard of care will require an evidence-base from prospective studies.

Radiobiological comparison of hypofractionated accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) and single-dose intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with 50-kV X-rays

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) of the tumor bed in early breast cancer is presently performed with a single dose of 50-kV X-rays from a miniaturized X-ray machine using spherical applicators. The purpose was to model the biological effect of hypofractionated accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) with ten fractions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) was estimated from the linear-quadratic (L-Q) formalism including repair of sublethal damage or assuming a constant RBE = 1.2-1.5. The radial distribution of biological effect was assessed from clinical dose-response curves. In accordance with clinical convention, the dose for APBI was prescribed at 1 cm depth in the tumor bed, whereas for IORT it was prescribed at the applicator surface.

RESULTS

The fraction size was fitted to give the same risk of late normal-tissue reaction (fibrosis) as single-dose IORT with a maximum dose of 20 Gy. The isoeffective fraction size at 1 cm depth varied between 1.01 Gy for RBE estimated from the L-Q model and 1.64 Gy for constant RBE. The applicator size and dose prescription point influenced the radial dose distribution. The "sphere of equivalence" within which the risk for local recurrence is the same for whole-breast radiotherapy was predicted to extend to 11-15 mm distance from the applicator for alpha/beta = 10 Gy and 9-13 mm for alpha/beta = 4 Gy for hypofractionated APBI, representing an increase of the sphere of equivalence by 2.5-6 mm relative to single-dose IORT.

CONCLUSION

An increase of the therapeutic window with hypofractionated APBI relative to single-dose IORT should be feasible.

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

After breast-conserving surgery, 90% of local recurrences occur within the index quadrant despite the presence of multicentric cancers elsewhere in the breast. Thus, restriction of radiation therapy to the tumour bed during surgery might be adequate for selected patients. We compared targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with the conventional policy of whole breast external beam radiotherapy.

METHODS

Having safely piloted the new technique of single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with Intrabeam, we launched the TARGIT-A trial on March 24, 2000. In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma undergoing breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from 28 centres in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy or whole breast external beam radiotherapy, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy. Neither patients nor investigators or their teams were masked to treatment assignment. Postoperative discovery of predefined factors (eg, lobular carcinoma) could trigger addition of external beam radiotherapy to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (in an expected 15% of patients). The primary outcome was local recurrence in the conserved breast. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 2.5% in the primary endpoint. All randomised patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684.

FINDINGS

1113 patients were randomly allocated to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 1119 were allocated to external beam radiotherapy. Of 996 patients who received the allocated treatment in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group, 854 (86%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy only and 142 (14%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy plus external beam radiotherapy. 1025 (92%) patients in the external beam radiotherapy group received the allocated treatment. At 4 years, there were six local recurrences in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and five in the external beam radiotherapy group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence in the conserved breast at 4 years was 1.20% (95% CI 0.53-2.71) in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 0.95% (0.39-2.31) in the external beam radiotherapy group (difference between groups 0.25%, -1.04 to 1.54; p=0.41). The frequency of any complications and major toxicity was similar in the two groups (for major toxicity, targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, 37 [3.3%] of 1113 vs external beam radiotherapy, 44 [3.9%] of 1119; p=0.44). Radiotherapy toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3) was lower in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group (six patients [0.5%]) than in the external beam radiotherapy group (23 patients [2.1%]; p=0.002).

INTERPRETATION

For selected patients with early breast cancer, a single dose of radiotherapy delivered at the time of surgery by use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy should be considered as an alternative to external beam radiotherapy delivered over several weeks.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Phase I/II study evaluating early tolerance in breast cancer patients undergoing accelerated partial breast irradiation treated with the mammosite balloon breast brachytherapy catheter using a 2-day dose schedule

PURPOSE

Initial Phase I/II results using balloon brachytherapy to deliver accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in 2 days in patients with early-stage breast cancer are presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2004 and August 2007, 45 patients received adjuvant radiation therapy after lumpectomy with balloon brachytherapy in a Phase I/II trial delivering 2800 cGy in four fractions of 700 cGy. Toxicities were evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 scale and cosmesis was documented at >or=6 months.

RESULTS

The median age was 66 years (range, 48-83) and median skin spacing was 12 mm (range, 8-24). The median follow-up was 11.4 months (5.4-48 months) with 21 patients (47%) followed >or=1 year, 11 (24%) >or=2 years, and 7 (16%) >or=3 years. At <6 months (n = 45), Grade II toxicity rates were 9% radiation dermatitis, 13% breast pain, 2% edema, and 2% hyperpigmentation. Grade III breast pain was reported in 13% (n = 6). At >or=6 months (n = 43), Grade II toxicity rates were: 2% radiation dermatitis, 2% induration, and 2% hypopigmentation. Grade III breast pain was reported in 2%. Infection was 13% (n = 6) at <6 months and 5% (n = 2) at >or=6 months. Persistent seroma >or=6 months was 30% (n = 13). Fat necrosis developed in 4 cases (2 symptomatic). Rib fractures were seen in 4% (n = 2). Cosmesis was good/excellent in 96% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with balloon brachytherapy using a 2-day dose schedule resulted acceptable rates of Grade II/III chronic toxicity rates and similar cosmetic results observed with a standard 5-day accelerated partial breast irradiation schedule.

Xoft Axxent electronic brachytherapy

Balloon-based brachytherapy was developed to render accelerated partial-breast irradiation more accessible to breast cancer patients. Xoft Axxent electronic brachytherapy (eBX) is a novel method of accelerated partial-breast irradiation that utilizes an electronic source to produce x-rays. eBX does not require a high dose rate afterloader unit or a shielded vault and, thus, may appeal to a larger number of patients undergoing the accelerated partial-breast irradiation procedure. eBX is associated with a lower radiation dose to normal tissues and larger 'hot spots' than treatment with the MammoSite device. Additional applications are also being developed for eBX, including endometrial cancer treatment.

Xoft Axxent electronic brachytherapy: a new device for delivering brachytherapy to the breast

Balloon-based brachytherapy was developed to simplify the brachytherapy technique and make accelerated partial breast irradiation more accessible to patients with breast cancer who are suitable candidates for this technique. Xoft Axxent (Xoft, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) electronic brachytherapy is a novel method of accelerated partial breast irradiation that uses an electronic source to produce X-rays. Xoft Axxent treatment does not require a high-dose-rate afterloader unit or a shielded vault, unlike other brachytherapy techniques that use iridium-192, such as MammoSite brachytherapy. Xoft Axxent is associated with the delivery of less radiation to normal tissues, and increased high radiation dose regions or 'hot spots' to the target volume compared with treatment with the MammoSite device. Further research will be needed to determine subgroups of patients who might benefit from treatment with Xoft Axxent electronic brachytherapy.

Current management of DCIS: a review

Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) is a heterogeneous disease, in terms of its radiological characteristics, histological morphology and molecular attributes. This diversity is reflected in its natural history and influences optimal treatment strategy. A significant proportion of DCIS lesions behave in a clinically benign fashion and do not progress to invasive disease. Reliable identification of these patients could allow treatment to be less radical or safely omitted. Management should be tailored to the individual within the context of a multidisciplinary team. Approaches such as biological profiling and molecular analysis represent an opportunity to improve our understanding of the tumour biology of this condition and rationalise its treatment. This article reviews the management strategies for DCIS in the context of recent randomized trials, including the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy, adjuvant radiotherapy and tamoxifen.