1
|
Li Y, Li WW, Yuan L, Xu B. Is repeat breast conservation possible for small ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence? Cancer 2022; 128:3919-3928. [PMID: 36128621 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Revised: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most cases of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) involve small tumors. Although a few guidelines recommend mastectomy, several patients prefer repeat BCS (re-BCS). This study aimed to compare re-BCS and mastectomy in terms of prognosis in patients with IBTR and to identify candidates for re-BCS. METHODS The data of patients with small IBTR between 1999 and 2015 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models and propensity score matching were applied. RESULTS Of the 3648 patients with IBTR, 2831 (77.6%) underwent mastectomy and 817 (22.4%) underwent re-BCS. The multivariate Cox model showed that re-BCS was associated with a worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.342; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.084-1.663) and BCSS (HR, 1.454; 95% CI, 1.004-2.105) compared with mastectomy. The omission of radiation after re-BCS was associated with worse survival overall and especially in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative IBTR (HR, 1.384; 95% CI, 1.110-1.724; and HR, 1.577; 95% CI, 1.075-2.314, respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed in the OS and BCSS between re-BCS with radiation and mastectomy. Subgroup analysis indicated that the surgical approach was not an independent factor for survival in the ER-positive patients with IBTR. CONCLUSIONS Re-BCS should be considered with caution in patients with small IBTR. However, a positive ER status can be an important factor for choosing re-BCS, and radiation therapy may improve oncological safety after re-BCS. LAY SUMMARY Repeat breast-conserving surgery (re-BCS) was investigated to determine if it is safe for patients with small ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This population-based cohort study included 2831 patients with small IBTR. Re-BCS was associated with a worse overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival compared with mastectomy. Further analysis found that the IBTR estrogen receptor status was an important basis for choosing re-BCS, and radiation may improve oncological safety after re-BCS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong Li
- Department of Breast, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.,Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Wei-Wen Li
- Department of Breast, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Lin Yuan
- Department of Breast, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.,Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Bo Xu
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.,Department of General Surgery, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Xie Y, Wang Q, Hu T, Chen R, Wang J, Chang H, Cheng J. Risk Factors Related to Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients After Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 11:738851. [PMID: 34912704 PMCID: PMC8667470 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.738851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) is the most common acute response after adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer patients and negatively affects patients’ quality of life. Some studies have reported several risk factors that can predict breast cancer patients who are at a high risk of ARD. This study aimed to identify patient- and treatment-related risk factors associated with ARD. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang literature databases were searched for studies exploring the risk factors in breast cancer patients. The pooled effect sizes, relative risks (RRs), and 95% CIs were calculated using the random-effects model. Potential heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses by study design, ARD evaluation scale, and regions were also performed. Results A total of 38 studies composed of 15,623 breast cancer patients were included in the analysis. Of the seven available patient-related risk factors, four factors were significantly associated with ARD: body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.06–1.16, I2 = 57.1%), large breast volume (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01–1.03, I2 = 93.2%), smoking habits (RR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.24–2.34, I2 = 50.7%), and diabetes (RR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.53–3.27, I2 = 0%). Of the seven treatment-related risk factors, we found that hypofractionated radiotherapy reduced the risk of ARD in patients with breast cancer compared with that in conventional fractionated radiotherapy (RR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.19–0.43, I2 = 84.5%). Sequential boost and bolus use was significantly associated with ARD (boost, RR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.34–2.72, I2 = 92.5%; bolus, RR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.82–4.76, I2 = 23.8%). However, chemotherapy regimen (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.95–1.45, I2 = 57.2%), hormone therapy (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.94–1.93, I2 = 77.1%), trastuzumab therapy (RR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.18–1.76, I2 = 91.9%), and nodal irradiation (RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.98–2.53, I2 = 72.5%) were not correlated with ARD. Sensitivity analysis results showed that BMI was consistently associated with ARD, while smoking, breast volume, and boost administration were associated with ARD depending on study design, country of study, and toxicity evaluation scale used. Hypofractionation was consistently shown as protective. The differences between study design, toxicity evaluation scale, and regions might explain a little of the sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 was a significant predictor of ARD and that hypofractionation was consistently protective. Depending on country of study, study design, and toxicity scale used, breast volume, smoking habit, diabetes, and sequential boost and bolus use were also predictive of ARD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuxiu Xie
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Qiong Wang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Ting Hu
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Renwang Chen
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Jue Wang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Haiyan Chang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Jing Cheng
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Walstra CJEF, Schipper RJ, van Riet YE, van der Toorn PPG, Smidt ML, Sangen MJCV, Voogd AC, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP. Repeat breast-conserving treatment of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a nationwide survey amongst breast surgeons and radiation oncologists in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2021; 187:499-514. [PMID: 33713244 PMCID: PMC8189996 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06154-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2020] [Accepted: 02/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Background In line with the paradigm to minimize surgical morbidity in patients with primary breast cancer, there is increasing evidence for the safety of a repeat breast-conserving treatment (BCT) of an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) in selected patients. The conditions for the feasibility of a repeat BCT vary widely in literature. In clinical practice, many physicians have ongoing concerns about the oncological safety and possible toxicity of repeat BCT. Aim To investigate the attitude of Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists towards repeat BCT and to report on their experiences with, objections against and perceived requirements to consider a repeat BCT in case of IBTR. Patients and methods An online survey consisting of a maximum of 26 open and multiple-choice questions about repeat BCT for IBTR was distributed amongst Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists. Results Forty-nine surgeons representing 49% of Dutch hospitals and 20 radiation oncologists representing 70% of Dutch radiation oncology centres responded. A repeat BCT was considered feasible in selected cases by 28.7% of breast surgeons and 55% of radiation oncologists. The most important factors to consider a repeat BCT for both groups were the patient’s preference to preserve the breast and surgical feasibility of a second lumpectomy. Arguments against a repeat BCT were based on the perceived unacceptable toxicity and cosmesis of a second course of radiotherapy. The technique of preference for re-irradiation would be partial breast irradiation (PBI) according to all radiation oncologists. Differentiating between new primary tumours (NPT) and true recurrences (TR) was reported to be done by 57.1% of breast surgeons and 60% of radiation oncologists. The most important reason to differentiate between NPT and TR was to establish prognosis and to consider whether a repeat BCT would be feasible. Conclusion An increasing number of Dutch breast cancer specialists is considering a repeat BCT feasible in selected cases, at the patient’s preference and with partial breast re-irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Coco J E F Walstra
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
| | - Robert-Jan Schipper
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Yvonne E van Riet
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marjolein L Smidt
- Department of Surgical Oncology Maastricht, Universitair Medisch Centrum, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice J C Vd Sangen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Adri C Voogd
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.,GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
O'Grady F, Barsky AR, Anamalayil S, Freedman GM, Kennedy C, Cai B, Laugeman E, Dong L, Hugo GD, Metz JM, Mutic S, Taunk NK, Li T. Increase in Superficial Dose in Whole-Breast Irradiation With Halcyon Straight-Through Linac Compared With Traditional C-arm Linac With Flattening Filter: In vivo Dosimetry and Planning Study. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 5:120-126. [PMID: 32051898 PMCID: PMC7004930 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2019] [Revised: 06/24/2019] [Accepted: 07/11/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Superficial dose is an important parameter in breast cancer radiation therapy. When treated with conventional linacs, bolus is commonly applied to improve target coverage near the surface while also managing the risk of severe skin reactions and negative cosmesis. With the introduction of modern linacs with 6X flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams, the effect on superficial dose and the need for bolus must be evaluated. Methods and Materials In vivo measurements of superficial dose were made with optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters on 11 breast cancer patients treated with the Halcyon 6X FFF linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Additionally, measurements were made with the Halycon 6X FFF beam and a 6X beam with flattening filter (FF) delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom. A planning study was carried out in which 14 patients treated on the Halcyon were replanned with a conventional linac to determine the difference in superficial dose predicted by the treatment planning system. Measures were taken to increase the accuracy of the treatment planning system superficial dose. Results The use of the Halcyon 6X FFF beam led to higher superficial dose compared with 6X FF beams. The in vivo measurements show an average superficial dose of 83.8% ± 0.6%, which is an increase of approximately 10% compared with published measurements for a 6X FF linac. Comparison of superficial dose for 6X FF and 6X FFF beams in the phantom measurements show an increase from 70% ± 1.3% to 84% ± 1.3%, which is consistent with the in vivo measurements. The planning comparison shows an increase in V70%Rx from 62% ± 4.4% to 81% ± 2.2% for the superficial breast tissue for the Halcyon 6X FFF beam compared with a standard C-arm linac with FF. Conclusions The use of the Halcyon 6X FFF beam was associated with higher superficial dose which may obviate the use of bolus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fionnbarr O'Grady
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Andrew R Barsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Shibu Anamalayil
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Gary M Freedman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Christopher Kennedy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Bin Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Eric Laugeman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Geoffrey D Hugo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - James M Metz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Sasa Mutic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Neil K Taunk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Taoran Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
DeCesaris CM, Rice SR, Bentzen SM, Jatczak J, Mishra MV, Nichols EM. Quantification of Acute Skin Toxicities in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Adjuvant Proton versus Photon Radiation Therapy: A Single Institutional Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:1084-1090. [PMID: 31028831 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.04.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2019] [Revised: 04/15/2019] [Accepted: 04/16/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Acute skin toxicity in the form of radiation dermatitis (RD) or skin hyperpigmentation (SH) is a common problem experienced by patients undergoing breast irradiation. Proton radiation has been thought to deliver higher doses to skin compared with photon radiation because of differences in the physical properties between photons and protons; however, limited literature exists directly comparing toxicity outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS The highest recorded grades of acute RD and SH were analyzed in 86 patients undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy to the breast with or without regional lymph nodes after lumpectomy (breast-conserving surgery) or mastectomy with either proton pencil-beam scanning (n = 39) or photon (n = 47) radiation therapy within a single institution to analyze differences in severity of acute skin reactions. For 34 of 47 photon and 33 of 39 proton patients, a "skin" contour was retroactively created in our treatment planning systems, and multiple dosimetric parameters were calculated to quantify objective radiation doses received by skin. RESULTS On χ2 analysis, the highest reported grade of RD was significantly higher in women undergoing proton radiation compared with photon radiation; grade ≥2 RD was present in 69.2% versus 29.8% of patients receiving proton and photon therapy, respectively (P = .002). Rates of grade 3 RD were 5.1% versus 4.3% for proton versus photon radiation, respectively (P = .848). Overall, there were no significant differences in rates of SH between modalities. There were no grade 4 to 5 toxicities in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS In a comparison with patients receiving photon radiation, a significantly higher rate of grade ≥2 RD was observed in patients undergoing proton radiation, with very low rates of grade 3 toxicity in both groups. Rates of SH did not differ significantly between modalities. Women should be counseled regarding the possibility of increased grade 2 toxicities, although this might present a dosimetric advantage for physicians when treating patients in the postmastectomy setting or when skin was involved on presentation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina M DeCesaris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
| | - Stephanie R Rice
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD
| | - Soren M Bentzen
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Mark V Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Elizabeth M Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|