Hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy in ductal carcinoma in situ: toxicity and cosmetic outcome from a prospective series

Comparison of helical and TomoDirect techniques with simultaneous integrated boost in early breast cancer patients

Background

The aim of the study was to perform dosimetric comparisons of helical (H) and TomoDirect (TD) plans for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery.

Materials and methods

Fifty patients, 25 with left-side and 25 with right-side tumors, were determined for a treatment planning system for a total dose of 50.4Gy in 1.8Gy per fraction to WBI, with a SIB of 2.3Gy per fraction delivered to the tumor bed. The planning target volume (PTV) doses and the conformity (CI) and homogeneity indices (HI) for PTVbreast and PTVboost, as well as organ-at-risk (OAR) doses and treatment times, were compared between the H and TD plans.

Results

All plans met the PTV coverage criteria for the H plan, except for mean V107 of PTVbreast for TD plan. The H plan yielded better homogeneity and conformity of dose distribution compared to the TD plan. The ipsilateral mean lung doses were not significantly different between the two plans. The TD plans is advantageous for mean doses to the heart, contralateral breast and lung, spinal cord, and esophagus than the H plans. In both the H and TD plans, the right-sided breast patients had lower heart dose parameters than the left-sided breast patients. The TD plan is superior to the H plan in sparing the contralateral breast and lung by decreasing low-dose volumes.

Conclusions

While the OAR dose advantages of TD are appealing, shorter treatment times or improved dose homogeneity and conformity for target volume may be advantageous for H plan.

Hypofractionated breast irradiation: a multidisciplinary review of the Senonetwork study group

The multidisciplinary management represents a crucial part of the care for cancer patients, resulting in better clinical and process outcomes, with evidence of improved survival among different cancer primary sites, including breast. According with international recommendations established by the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA), all breast-cancer patients have to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team including radiologist, pathologist, surgeon, medical oncologist and radiation oncologist. Thus, variations in clinical practice of each specialty should be discussed and shared with all team members to guarantee a fruitful cooperation among the involved specialists. During the last decades, radiation treatment was deeply changed by the evidence-based adoption of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) as standard of treatment in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing conservative surgery. Moreover, mature randomized data have showed that partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective and safe alternative to whole breast irradiation in selected patients with low-risk early-stage breast cancer. Based on this background, we reviewed indications and critical issues of HFRT and PBI analyzing impact of their adoption from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Comparing hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated whole breast irradiation for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ after breast conservation: a propensity score-matched analysis from a national multicenter cohort (COBCG-02 study)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Randomized trials confirmed the efficacy and the safety of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) in patients with early-stage breast cancer. However, the role of HF-WBI in patients with DCIS after breast conserving surgery has not yet been clearly established in prospective randomized trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate if HF-WBI can be considered comparable to conventionally fractionated (CF)-WBI in DCIS patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis included DCIS patients from four Italian centers treated with CF-WBI 50 Gy/25 fractions or HFRT 40.5 Gy/15 fractions, without tumor bed boost. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using a logistic regression that considered age, grading, presence of necrosis, resection margin status and adjuvant endocrine therapy.

RESULTS

Five hundred twenty-seven patients was included (367 in the CF-WBI-group and 160 in the HR-WBI group). After 1:1 matching, 101 patients were allocated to the CF-WBI-group and 104 to the HF-WBI group. No correlation was observed between the type of RT schedule and LRFS (HR 1.68, 95% CI 0.82-3.45; p = 0.152). After PSM, no statistical difference was observed between the two RT group (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.40-3.04; p = 0.833), with 3- and 5-years LRFS rates of 100% and 97.9% for CF-WBI and 95.6% and 94% for HF-WBI.

CONCLUSION

A short course of radiation therapy seems to be comparable to CF-WBI in terms of clinical outcomes. These data support the use of hypofractionated schedules in DCIS patients, but considering the remaining uncertainties.

Breast size and dose to cardiac substructures in adjuvant three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy compared to tangential intensity modulated radiotherapy

Background

The aim of the study was to quantify planned doses to the heart and specific cardiac substructures in free-breathing adjuvant three-dimensional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and tangential intensity modulated radiotherapy (t-IMRT) for left-sided node-negative breast cancer, and to assess the differences in planned doses to organs at risk according to patients’ individual anatomy, including breast volume.

Patients and methods

In the study, the whole heart and cardiac substructures were delineated for 60 patients using cardiac atlas. For each patient, 3D-CRT and t-IMRT plans were generated. The prescribed dose was 42.72 Gy in 16 fractions. Patients were divided into groups with small, medium, and large clinical target volume (CTV). Calculated dose distributions were compared amongst the two techniques and the three different groups of CTV.

Results

Mean absorbed dose to the whole heart (MWHD) (1.9 vs. 2.1 Gy, P < 0.005), left anterior descending coronary artery mean dose (8.2 vs. 8.4 Gy, P < 0.005) and left ventricle (LV) mean dose (3.0 vs. 3.2, P < 0.005) were all significantly lower with 3D-CRT technique compared to t-IMRT. Apical (8.5 vs. 9.0, P < 0.005) and anterior LV walls (5.0 vs. 5.4 Gy, P < 0.005) received the highest mean dose (D_mean). MWHD and LV-D_mean increased with increasing CTV size regardless of the technique. Low MWHD values (< 2.5 Gy) were achieved in 44 (73.3%) and 41 (68.3%) patients for 3D-CRT and t-IMRT techniques, correspondingly.

Conclusions

Our study confirms a considerable range of the planned doses within the heart for adjuvant 3D-CRT or t-IMRT in node-negative breast cancer. We observed differences in heart dosimetric metrics between the three groups of CTV size, regardless of the radiotherapy planning technique.

Three-Year Outcomes With Hypofractionated Versus Conventionally Fractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: Results of a Randomized, Noninferiority Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The adoption of hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) remains low, in part because of concerns regarding its safety when used with a tumor bed boost or in patients who have received chemotherapy or have large breast size. To address this, we conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to compare conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI; 50 Gy/25 fx + 10 to 14 Gy/5 to 7 fx) with HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fx + 10 to 12.5 Gy/4 to 5 fx).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2011 to 2014, 287 women with stage 0 to II breast cancer were randomly assigned to CF-WBI or HF-WBI, stratified by chemotherapy, margin status, cosmesis, and breast size. The trial was designed to test the hypothesis that HF-WBI is not inferior to CF-WBI with regard to the proportion of patients with adverse cosmetic outcome 3 years after radiation, assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale. Secondary outcomes included photographically assessed cosmesis scored by a three-physician panel and local recurrence-free survival. Analyses were intention to treat.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients received the protocol-specified radiation dose, 30% received chemotherapy, and 36.9% had large breast size. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Median follow-up was 4.1 years. Three-year adverse cosmetic outcome was 5.4% lower with HF-WBI ( Pnoninferiority = .002; absolute risks were 8.2% [n = 8] with HF-WBI v 13.6% [n = 15] with CF-WBI). For those treated with chemotherapy, adverse cosmetic outcome was higher by 4.1% (90% upper confidence limit, 15.0%) with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI; for large breast size, adverse cosmetic outcome was 18.6% lower (90% upper confidence limit, -8.0%) with HF-WBI. Poor or fair photographically assessed cosmesis was noted in 28.8% of CF-WBI patients and 35.4% of HF-WBI patients ( P = .31). Three-year local recurrence-free survival was 99% with both HF-WBI and CF-WBI ( P = .37).

CONCLUSION

Three years after WBI followed by a tumor bed boost, outcomes with hypofractionation and conventional fractionation are similar. Tumor bed boost, chemotherapy, and larger breast size do not seem to be strong contraindications to HF-WBI.