1
|
Alkner S, Wieslander E, Lundstedt D, Berg M, Kristensen I, Andersson Y, Bergkvist L, Frisell J, Olofsson Bagge R, Sund M, Christiansen P, Davide Gentilini O, Kontos M, Kühn T, Reimer T, Rydén L, Filtenborg Tvedskov T, Vrou Offersen B, Dahl Nissen H, de Boniface J. Quality assessment of radiotherapy in the prospective randomized SENOMAC trial. Radiother Oncol 2024; 197:110372. [PMID: 38866204 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110372] [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: 04/03/2024] [Revised: 05/15/2024] [Accepted: 06/04/2024] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Recommendations for regional radiotherapy (RT) of sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive breast cancer are debated. We here report a RT quality assessment of the SENOMAC trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS The SENOMAC trial randomized clinically node-negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 SLN macrometastases to completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) or SLN biopsy only between 2015-2021. Adjuvant RT followed national guidelines. RT plans for patients included in Sweden and Denmark until June 2019 were collected (N = 1176) and compared to case report forms (CRF). Dose to level I (N = 270) and the humeral head (N = 321) was analyzed in detail. RESULTS CRF-data and RT plans agreed in 99.3 % (breast/chest wall) and in 96.6 % of patients (regional RT). Congruence for whether level I was an intended RT target was lower (78 %). In accordance with Danish national guidelines, level I was more often an intended target in the SLN biopsy only arm (N = 334/611, 55 %,) than in the cALND arm (N = 174/565, 31 %,). When an intended target, level I received prescribed dose to 100 % (IQR 98-100 %) of the volume. However, even when not an intended target, full dose was delivered to > 80 % of level I (IQR 75-90 %). The intentional inclusion of level I in the target volume more than doubled the dose received by ≥ 50 % of the humeral head. CONCLUSION Congruence between CRF data and RT plans was excellent. Level I received a high dose coverage even when not intentionally included in the target. Including level I in target significantly increased dose to the humeral head.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Alkner
- Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Skåne University Hospital Lund, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Lund, Sweden.
| | - Elinore Wieslander
- Skåne University Hospital Lund, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Lund, Sweden
| | - Dan Lundstedt
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Oncology at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Martin Berg
- Department of Oncology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Ingrid Kristensen
- Skåne University Hospital Lund, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Lund, Sweden
| | - Yvette Andersson
- Department of Surgery, Vastmanland Hospital Vasteras, Vasteras, Sweden; Centre for Clinical Research, Uppsala University and Region Vastmanland, Vastmanland Hospital Vasteras, Sweden
| | - Leif Bergkvist
- Centre for Clinical Research, Uppsala University and Region Vastmanland, Vastmanland Hospital Vasteras, Sweden
| | - Jan Frisell
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Breast Center Karolinska, Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Roger Olofsson Bagge
- Sahlgrenska Center for Cancer Research, Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Malin Sund
- Department of Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Finland; Department of Diagnostics and Intervention/ Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden
| | - Peer Christiansen
- Department of Plastic and Breast Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Oreste Davide Gentilini
- Breast Surgery, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milano, Italy
| | - Michalis Kontos
- 1st Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Thorsten Kühn
- Die Filderklinik, Breast Center, Filderstadt, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Ulm, Germany
| | - Toralf Reimer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
| | - Lisa Rydén
- Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Skåne University Hospital , Department of Gastroenterology and Surgery, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Tove Filtenborg Tvedskov
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Breast Surgery, Gentofte Hospital, Gentofte, Denmark
| | - Birgitte Vrou Offersen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Henrik Dahl Nissen
- Department of Oncology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Jana de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Capio St. Goran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bleaney CW, Abdelaal H, Reardon M, Anandadas C, Hoskin P, Choudhury A, Forker L. Clinical Biomarkers of Tumour Radiosensitivity and Predicting Benefit from Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1942. [PMID: 38792019 PMCID: PMC11119069 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16101942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2024] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 05/16/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Modern advanced radiotherapy techniques have improved the precision and accuracy of radiotherapy delivery, with resulting plans being highly personalised based on individual anatomy. Adaptation for individual tumour biology remains elusive. There is an unmet need for biomarkers of intrinsic radiosensitivity that can predict tumour response to radiation to facilitate individualised decision-making, dosing and treatment planning. Over the last few decades, the use of high throughput molecular biology technologies has led to an explosion of newly discovered cancer biomarkers. Gene expression signatures are now used routinely in clinic to aid decision-making regarding adjuvant systemic therapy. They have great potential as radiotherapy biomarkers. A previous systematic review published in 2015 reported only five studies of signatures evaluated for their ability to predict radiotherapy benefits in clinical cohorts. This updated systematic review encompasses the expanded number of studies reported in the last decade. An additional 27 studies were identified. In total, 22 distinct signatures were recognised (5 pre-2015, 17 post-2015). Seventeen signatures were 'radiosensitivity' signatures and five were breast cancer prognostic signatures aiming to identify patients at an increased risk of local recurrence and therefore were more likely to benefit from adjuvant radiation. Most signatures (15/22) had not progressed beyond the discovery phase of development, with no suitable validated clinical-grade assay for application. Very few signatures (4/17 'radiosensitivity' signatures) had undergone any laboratory-based biological validation of their ability to predict tumour radiosensitivity. No signatures have been assessed prospectively in a phase III biomarker-led trial to date and none are recommended for routine use in clinical guidelines. A phase III prospective evaluation is ongoing for two breast cancer prognostic signatures. The most promising radiosensitivity signature remains the radiosensitivity index (RSI), which is used to calculate a genomic adjusted radiation dose (GARD). There is an ongoing phase II prospective biomarker-led study of RSI/GARD in triple negative breast cancer. The results of these trials are eagerly anticipated over the coming years. Future work in this area should focus on (1) robust biological validation; (2) building biobanks alongside large radiotherapy randomised controlled trials with dose variance (to demonstrate an interaction between radiosensitivity signature and dose); (3) a validation of clinical-grade cost-effective assays that are deliverable within current healthcare infrastructure; and (4) an integration with biomarkers of other determinants of radiation response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher W. Bleaney
- Translational Radiobiology Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, The Oglesby Cancer Research Building, The University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK (L.F.)
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Hebatalla Abdelaal
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Mark Reardon
- Translational Radiobiology Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, The Oglesby Cancer Research Building, The University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK (L.F.)
| | - Carmel Anandadas
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Peter Hoskin
- Translational Radiobiology Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, The Oglesby Cancer Research Building, The University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK (L.F.)
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Translational Radiobiology Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, The Oglesby Cancer Research Building, The University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK (L.F.)
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Laura Forker
- Translational Radiobiology Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, The Oglesby Cancer Research Building, The University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK (L.F.)
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Stenmark Tullberg A, Sjöström M, Niméus E, Killander F, Chang SL, Feng FY, Speers CW, Pierce LJ, Kovács A, Lundstedt D, Holmberg E, Karlsson P. Integrating Tumor-Intrinsic and Immunologic Factors to Identify Immunogenic Breast Cancers from a Low-Risk Cohort: Results from the Randomized SweBCG91RT Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2023; 29:1783-1793. [PMID: 37071498 PMCID: PMC10150244 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-22-2746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 01/20/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The local immune infiltrate's influence on tumor progression may be closely linked to tumor-intrinsic factors. The study aimed to investigate whether integrating immunologic and tumor-intrinsic factors can identify patients from a low-risk cohort who may be candidates for radiotherapy (RT) de-escalation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The SweBCG91RT trial included 1,178 patients with stage I to IIA breast cancer, randomized to breast-conserving surgery with or without adjuvant RT, and followed for a median of 15.2 years. We trained two models designed to capture immunologic activity and immunomodulatory tumor-intrinsic qualities, respectively. We then analyzed if combining these two variables could further stratify tumors, allowing for identifying a subgroup where RT de-escalation is feasible, despite clinical indicators of a high risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). RESULTS The prognostic effect of the immunologic model could be predicted by the tumor-intrinsic model (Pinteraction = 0.01). By integrating measurements of the immunologic- and tumor-intrinsic models, patients who benefited from an active immune infiltrate could be identified. These patients benefited from standard RT (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.85; P = 0.025) and had a 5.4% 10-year incidence of IBTR after irradiation despite high-risk genomic indicators and a low frequency of systemic therapy. In contrast, high-risk tumors without an immune infiltrate had a high 10-year incidence of IBTR despite RT treatment (19.5%; 95% CI, 12.2-30.3). CONCLUSIONS Integrating tumor-intrinsic and immunologic factors may identify immunogenic tumors in early-stage breast cancer populations dominated by ER-positive tumors. Patients who benefit from an activated immune infiltrate may be candidates for RT de-escalation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Axel Stenmark Tullberg
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Martin Sjöström
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Oncology/Pathology and Surgery, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Emma Niméus
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Oncology/Pathology and Surgery, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Fredrika Killander
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Oncology/Pathology and Surgery, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- Department of Oncology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | | | - Felix Y. Feng
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | | - Lori J. Pierce
- University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Anikó Kovács
- Department of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Dan Lundstedt
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Erik Holmberg
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Per Karlsson
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Recent Advances in Optimizing Radiation Therapy Decisions in Early Invasive Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041260. [PMID: 36831598 PMCID: PMC9954587 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is a well-established treatment standard for early invasive breast cancer. Screening, early diagnosis, refinement in surgical techniques, the knowledge of new and specific molecular prognostic factors, and now the standard use of more effective neo/adjuvant systemic therapies have proven instrumental in reducing the rates of locoregional relapses. This underscores the need for reliably identifying women with such low-risk disease burdens in whom elimination of radiation from the treatment plan would not compromise oncological safety. This review summarizes the current evidence for radiation de-intensification strategies and details ongoing prospective clinical trials investigating the omission of adjuvant whole breast irradiation in molecularly defined low-risk breast cancers and related evidence supporting the potential for radiation de-escalation in HER2+ and triple-negative clinical subtypes. Furthermore, we discuss the current evidence for the de-escalation of regional nodal irradiation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Finally, we also detail the current knowledge of the clinical value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and liquid-based biomarkers as prognostic factors for locoregional relapse.
Collapse
|
5
|
Sigurdson S, Thibodeau S, Korzeniowski M, Moraes FY. A Precise Approach for Radiotherapy of Breast Cancer. Cancer Treat Res 2023; 188:175-198. [PMID: 38175346 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-33602-7_7] [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] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
Radiotherapy is an integral part of the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer (BC). There have been multiple recent advances in the delivery of radiotherapy, reviewed with a critical discussion of the evidence from trials investigating adjuvant ultra-hypofractionation and partial breast irradiation for early-stage BC, and the locoregional management of lymph nodes in locally advanced BC. Multiple precision medicine-based approaches have been developed as prognostic and/or predictive for BC patients and identifying biomarkers of radioresistance could help identify patients that may benefit from dose-escalated radiotherapy or radiosensitizers. Radiotherapy after breast reconstruction is an area of current controversy in the field, and we evaluated the decision-making considerations in this situation. The oligometastatic state is an emerging field for many cancer sites based on recent trials investigating ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic BC. This chapter is an overview of radiotherapy for BC, with a focus on recent advances in early-stage, locally advanced, and oligometastatic disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha Sigurdson
- Department of Oncology - Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Stephane Thibodeau
- Department of Oncology - Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Martin Korzeniowski
- Department of Oncology - Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Fabio Ynoe Moraes
- Department of Oncology - Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sittenfeld SMC, Zabor EC, Hamilton SN, Kuerer HM, El-Tamer M, Naoum GE, Truong PT, Nichol A, Smith BD, Woodward WA, Moo TA, Powell SN, Shah CS, Taghian AG, Abu-Gheida I, Tendulkar RD. A multi-institutional prediction model to estimate the risk of recurrence and mortality after mastectomy for T1-2N1 breast cancer. Cancer 2022; 128:3057-3066. [PMID: 35713598 PMCID: PMC9539507 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2021] [Revised: 04/12/2022] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Background Post‐mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in women with pathologic stage T1‐2N1M0 breast cancer is controversial. Methods Data from five North American institutions including women undergoing mastectomy without neoadjuvant therapy with pT1‐2N1M0 breast cancer treated from 2006 to 2015 were pooled for analysis. Competing‐risks regression was performed to identify factors associated with locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), overall recurrence (OR), and breast cancer mortality (BCM). Results A total of 3532 patients were included for analysis with a median follow‐up time among survivors of 6.8 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4.5–9.5 years). The 2154 (61%) patients who received PMRT had significantly more adverse risk factors than those patients not receiving PMRT: younger age, larger tumors, more positive lymph nodes, lymphovascular invasion, extracapsular extension, and positive margins (p < .05 for all). On competing risk regression analysis, receipt of PMRT was significantly associated with a decreased risk of LRR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.31; p < .001) and OR (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62–0.94; p = .011). Model performance metrics for each end point showed good discrimination and calibration. An online prediction model to estimate predicted risks for each outcome based on individual patient and tumor characteristics was created from the model. Conclusions In a large multi‐institutional cohort of patients, PMRT for T1‐2N1 breast cancer was associated with a significant reduction in locoregional and overall recurrence after accounting for known prognostic factors. An online calculator was developed to aid in personalized decision‐making regarding PMRT in this population. In a large multi‐institutional cohort of patients, post‐mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) for T1‐2N1 breast cancer was associated with a significant reduction in locoregional and overall recurrence after accounting for known prognostic factors. An online calculator was developed to aid in personalized decision‐making regarding PMRT in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah M C Sittenfeld
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Barrett Cancer Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Emily C Zabor
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Sarah N Hamilton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Henry M Kuerer
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mahmoud El-Tamer
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - George E Naoum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Pauline T Truong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Alan Nichol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tracy-Ann Moo
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Simon N Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Chirag S Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Alphonse G Taghian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ibrahim Abu-Gheida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Burjeel Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.,College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Rahul D Tendulkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Al-Hilli Z, Weiss A, Armani A, Boughey JC, Blair SL. Breast cancer-The catalyst of contemporary trials design. J Surg Oncol 2021; 125:7-16. [PMID: 34897706 DOI: 10.1002/jso.26722] [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: 10/09/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
Surgical trials in breast cancer have catalyzed contemporary trial design for solid organ cancers and are a prime example of surgeons taking the lead in clinical trial design. Surgeons have lead trials that have improved patient outcomes and quality of life without sacrificing oncologic safety. We have evolved from radical mastectomy to breast conservation and sentinel node biopsy. Contemporary trial design in breast cancer now focus on personalizing care based on tumor genomics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zahraa Al-Hilli
- Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Anna Weiss
- Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ava Armani
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Judy C Boughey
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sarah L Blair
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Senkus E, Cardoso MJ, Kaidar-Person O, Łacko A, Meattini I, Poortmans P. De-escalation of axillary irradiation for early breast cancer - Has the time come? Cancer Treat Rev 2021; 101:102297. [PMID: 34656018 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2021] [Revised: 09/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
Introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy, initially in clinically node-negative and subsequently in patients presenting with involved axilla and downstaged by primary systemic therapy, allowed for significant decrease in morbidity compared to axillary lymph node dissection. Concurrently, regional nodal irradiation was demonstrated to improve outcomes in most node-positive patients. Additionally, over the last decades, introduction of more effective systemic therapies has resulted in improvements not only at distant sites, but also in locoregional control, creating space for de-escalation of locoregional treatments. We discuss the data on de-escalation in axillary surgery and irradiation, both in patients undergoing upfront surgery and primary systemic therapy, with special emphasis on the feasibility of omission of nodal irradiation in patients undergoing primary systemic therapy. In view of the accumulating evidence, omission of axillary irradiation may be considered in clinically node-positive patients converting after primary systemic therapy to pathologically negative nodes on sentinel lymph node biopsy (preferably also with in-breast pCR), presenting with lower initial nodal stage, older age and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by whole breast irradiation. Omission of regional nodal irradiation in patients with aggressive tumor phenotypes achieving a pCR is under investigation. In patients undergoing preoperative endocrine therapy the adoption of axillary management strategies utilized in case of upfront surgery seems more suitable than those used in post chemotherapy-based primary systemic therapy setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elżbieta Senkus
- Department of Oncology & Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdańsk, Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-214 Gdańsk, Poland.
| | - Maria Joao Cardoso
- Breast Unit, Champalimaud Foundation, Av Brasilia, 1400-038 Lisbon, Portugal; Nova Medical School, Campo dos Mártires da Pátria 130, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal.
| | - Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, at Sheba Medical Center, Derech Sheba 2, Ramat Gan 52662, Israel; GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (Maastro), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, the Netherlands; The Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 6997801, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
| | - Aleksandra Łacko
- Department of Oncology, Wroclaw Medical University, plac Hirszfelda 12, 53-413 Wrocław, Poland; Department of Clinical Oncology, Breast Unit, Lower Silesian Oncology Centre, plac Hirszfelda 12, 53-413 Wroclaw, Poland.
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 50, 50134 Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Netwerk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610 Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken, Building S. Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Development of a MicroRNA Signature Predictive of Recurrence and Survival in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13205168. [PMID: 34680317 PMCID: PMC8534163 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13205168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2021] [Revised: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Optimal patient selection for radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer is unestablished and may be improved with molecular profiling. To this end, we developed and validated a microRNA signature that predicted for worse locoregional recurrence and overall survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. In a separate cohort of patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, this risk signature was also predictive of worse locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Additionally, borderline resectable or locally advanced patients who had high risk score and did not receive radiation had worse outcomes compared to patients who either had low risk score or received radiation, irrespective of risk score. This risk signature may be useful in assessing patient prognosis and tailor therapy in patients with resectable, borderline resectable, or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, but requires further study. Abstract Background: Optimal patient selection for radiotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unestablished. Molecular profiling may select patients at high risk for locoregional recurrence (LRR) who would benefit from radiation. Methods: We included resectable pancreatic cancer (R-PDAC) patients, divided into training and validation cohorts, treated among three institutions with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, and borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (BR/LA-PDAC) patients treated with chemotherapy with or without radiation at the primary study institution. We isolated RNA from R-PDAC surgical specimens. Using NanoString, we identified miRNAs differentially expressed between normal and malignant pancreatic tissue. ElasticNet regression identified two miRNAs most predictive of LRR in the training cohort, miR-181b/d and miR-575, which were used to generate a risk score (RS). We evaluated the association of the median-dichotomized RS with recurrence and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 183 R-PDAC and 77 BR/LA-PDAC patients with median follow up of 37 months treated between 2001 and 2014. On multivariable analysis of the R-PDAC training cohort (n = 90), RS was associated with worse LRR (HR = 1.34; 95%CI 1.27–11.38; p = 0.017) and OS (HR = 2.89; 95%CI 1.10–4.76; p = 0.027). In the R-PDAC validation cohort, RS was associated with worse LRR (HR = 2.39; 95%CI 1.03–5.54; p = 0.042), but not OS (p = 0.087). For BR/LA-PDAC, RS was associated with worse LRR (HR = 2.71; 95%CI 1.14–6.48; p = 0.025), DR (HR = 1.93; 95%CI 1.10–3.38; p = 0.022), and OS (HR = 1.97; 95%CI 1.17–3.34; p = 0.011). Additionally, after stratifying by RS and receipt of radiation in BR/LA-PDAC patients, high RS patients who did not receive radiation had worse LRR (p = 0.018), DR (p = 0.006), and OS (p < 0.001) compared to patients with either low RS or patients who received radiation, irrespective of RS. Conclusions: RS predicted worse LRR and OS in R-PDAC and worse LRR, DR, and OS in BR/LA-PDAC. This may select patients who would benefit from radiation and should be validated prospectively.
Collapse
|
10
|
Varnier R, Sajous C, de Talhouet S, Smentek C, Péron J, You B, Reverdy T, Freyer G. Using Breast Cancer Gene Expression Signatures in Clinical Practice: Unsolved Issues, Ongoing Trials and Future Perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:4840. [PMID: 34638325 PMCID: PMC8508256 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2021] [Revised: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 09/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The development of gene expression signatures since the early 2000's has offered standardized assays to evaluate the prognosis of early breast cancer. Five signatures are currently commercially available and recommended by several international guidelines to individualize adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in hormone receptors-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, many questions remain unanswered about their predictive ability, reproducibility and external validity in specific populations. They also represent a new hope to tailor (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment, adjuvant radiation therapy, hormone therapy duration and to identify a subset of patients who might benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitor adjuvant treatment. This review will highlight these particular issues, address the remaining questions and discuss the ongoing and future trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Romain Varnier
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
| | - Christophe Sajous
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
| | - Solène de Talhouet
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
| | - Colette Smentek
- Laboratoire Parcours Santé Systémique, EA 4129, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69372 Lyon, France;
| | - Julien Péron
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
- Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Equipe Biostatistique-Santé, CNRS UMR 5558, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
| | - Benoît You
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
- EA3738, CICLY & CITOHL, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France
| | - Thibaut Reverdy
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
| | - Gilles Freyer
- Medical Oncology Department, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France; (C.S.); (S.d.T.); (J.P.); (B.Y.) ; (T.R.); (G.F.)
- EA3738, CICLY & CITOHL, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69310 Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
McEvoy MP, Ravetch E, Patel G, Fox J, Feldman S. Prevention of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema. Clin Breast Cancer 2021; 21:128-142. [PMID: 33771439 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2020] [Revised: 01/25/2021] [Accepted: 02/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
Tremendous progress has been made over the past several decades in the treatment of breast cancer. Mortality and recurrence rates continue to decline. Our ability to tailor patient- and tumor-specific treatments has rapidly advanced. The vast majority of our patients can safely have breast conservation. Unfortunately, for many patients, survivorship is burdened by ongoing quality-of-life issues. Most breast cancer patients are asymptomatic at presentation, and the onus is on us to preserve this. Surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy can result in long-term toxicities that can be amplified with multimodality approaches. We must strive to apply minimally effective therapies rather than a maximally tolerated approach. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a particularly dreaded chronic complication. This review strives to give the reader a better understanding of BCRL and shed light on wisely choosing an integration of treatment modalities that minimizes BCRL risk. Key literature on emerging concepts is highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maureen P McEvoy
- Breast Surgery Division, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Bronx, NY.
| | - Ethan Ravetch
- Breast Surgery Division, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Bronx, NY
| | - Gunj Patel
- Breast Surgery Division, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Bronx, NY
| | - Jana Fox
- Breast Surgery Division, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Bronx, NY
| | - Sheldon Feldman
- Breast Surgery Division, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Bronx, NY
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Dosimetric evaluation of 3 and/or 4 field radiation therapy of breast cancers: clinical experience. JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE 2020. [DOI: 10.1017/s1460396920000503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
AbstractBackground:Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Canadian women. Surgery is often the first line of treatment for low-risk early stage patients, followed by adjuvant radiation therapy to reduce the risk of local recurrence and prevent metastasis after lumpectomy or mastectomy. For high-risk patients with node positive disease or are at greater risk of nodal metastasis, radiation therapy will involve treatment of the intact breast or chest-wall as well as the regional lymph nodes.Materials and methods:We retrospectively evaluated the treatment plans of 354 patients with breast cancer with nodes positive or were at high risk of nodal involvement treated at our cancer centre. All patients were treated with a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the intact breast or chest-wall and 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the supraclavicular region and, based on patient suitability and tolerance, were treated either using the deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) or free-breathing (FB) techniques.Results:Based on patient suitability and tolerance, 130 (36·7%) patients were treated with DIBH and 224 (63·3%) with FB techniques. There were 169 (47·7%) patients treated with intact breast, whereas 185 (52·3%) were treated for post-mastectomy chest-wall. The mean PTV_eval V92%, V95%, V100% and V105% for all patients are 99·4 ± 0·7, 97·6 ± 1·6, 74·8 ± 7·9 and 1·5 ± 3·2%, respectively. The mean ipsilateral lung V10Gy, V20Gy and V30Gy are 30·0 ± 5·3, 22·4 ± 4·7 and 18·4 ± 4·3% for intact breast and 30·9 ± 5·8, 23·5 ± 5·4 and 19·4 ± 5·0% for post-mastectomy patients with FB, respectively. The corresponding values for patients treated using DIBH are 26·3 ± 5·9, 18·9 ± 5·0 and 15·6 ± 4·7% for intact breast and 27·5 ± 6·5, 20·6 ± 5·7 and 17·1 ± 5·2% for post-mastectomy patients, respectively. The mean heart V10Gy, V20Gy, is 1·8 ± 1·7, 0·9 ± 1·0 for intact breast and 3·1 ± 2·2, 1·7 ± 1·6 for post-mastectomy patients with FB, respectively. The corresponding values with the DIBH are 0·5 ± 0·7, 0·1 ± 0·4 for intact breast and 1·1 ± 1·4, 0·4 ± 0·7 for post-mastectomy patients, respectively.Conclusion:The use of 3 and/or 4 field hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for radiation therapy of high-risk node positive breast cancer patients provides an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose uniformity, conformity and homogeneity in the breast or post-mastectomy chest-wall volume with minimal doses to the organs at risk. The development and implementation of a consistent treatment plan acceptability criteria in radiotherapy programmes would establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that would reduce significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans.
Collapse
|
13
|
A Radiation Oncologist’s Guide to Axillary Management in Breast Cancer: a Walk Through the Trials. CURRENT BREAST CANCER REPORTS 2019; 11:293-302. [DOI: 10.1007/s12609-019-00330-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
14
|
Weiss A, Wong S, Golshan M, Freedman RA, Metzger O, Bellon J, Mittendorf EA, King TA. Patterns of Axillary Management in Stages 2 and 3 Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer by Initial Treatment Approach. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26:4326-4336. [PMID: 31562601 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07785-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data regarding axillary management after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) are lacking. This study examined axillary management of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) patients based on initial treatment with NET, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), or upfront surgery. METHODS Patients with stage 2 or 3 HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated between 2012 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. The study examined axillary surgery [sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), SLNB followed by axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), or upfront ALND] by initial treatment stratified by cN0/N1 using pairwise comparisons and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Of 92,204 eligible patients, 2138 (2.3%) received NET, 11,014 (12%) received NAC, and 79,052 (85.7%) received surgery. Among 60,998 cN0 patients, attempted SLNB was more likely for surgery patients (86.2%, 47,159/54,684) and NET patients (85.8%, 1342/1564) than for NAC patients (79.9%, 3793/4750) (both p < 0.001). Among 31,206 cN1 patients, attempted SLNB was more likely for the surgery patients (46.0%, 11,201/24,368) than for the NET patients (41.8%, 240/574; p = 0.05) or the NAC patients (39.8%, 2491/6264; p < 0.0001). The differences between surgery and NET did not persist in the adjusted analyses. Among both the cN0 patients (n = 13,856) and the cN1 patients (n = 8688) with pN1 disease shown by SLNB, the NET patients were treated with ALND less frequently than those receiving NAC or surgery (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). In the multivariate analysis, for the patients with pN1 disease shown by SLNB, NET use was associated with increased odds of undergoing SLNB alone [cN0 patients: odds ratio (OR), 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-1.64; cN1 patients: OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.00-2.10]. CONCLUSIONS For stages 2 and 3 HR+/HER2- patients, SLNB use after NET was similar to that for upfront surgery. Among those with pN1 disease, the NET patients were less likely to undergo ALND. Additional outcomes data are needed to guide axillary management after NET.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Weiss
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Stephanie Wong
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Mehra Golshan
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Rachel A Freedman
- Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Otto Metzger
- Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jennifer Bellon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Mittendorf
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tari A King
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. .,Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|