Physician and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Phase III Trial of Ultra-Hypofractionated vs. Moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy to the Whole Breast after Breast-Conserving Surgery

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To report a final analysis evaluating physician and patient-reported outcomes of early breast cancer patients receiving moderate hypofractionation or ultra-hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (RT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

Between April 4, 2018, and February 11, 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (T1-T3, N0-N1, and M0) managed with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive whole breast RT with moderate hypofractionation to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (Arm A) or ultra-hypofractionation to 25 Gy in 5 fractions (Arm B). An optional concurrent integrated boost to 48 Gy on Arm A or 30 Gy on Arm B was allowed. Early toxicity (<3 months), late toxicity (> 3 months), quality of life (QOL), cosmesis, Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and deterioration of cosmesis were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients were randomized to moderate hypofractionation (n = 54) or ultra-hypofractionation (n = 53). With a median follow-up of 36 months, no significant differences in patient characteristics were noted between the two arms. There were no patients with a grade ≥3 or higher toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities were 7.4% in Arm A and 7.5% in Arm B, and primarily consisted of radiation dermatitis (6 patients), fibrosis (1 patient) and lymphedema (1 patient). The average Harvard Cosmesis score and overall QoL were similar between arms at all time points, with no patients developing cosmetic deterioration. Patient-reported moderate to severe radiation skin burns were more commonly reported in Arm A (21.05%) vs. Arm B (6.25%) at the end of treatment (EOT) (p = 0.078). At EOT, patients receiving moderate hypofractionation had higher mean toxicity scores in breast tenderness (2.66 vs. 1.5, p = 0.018), skin flaking or peeling (0.63 vs. 0.06, p = 0.035), blistering (0.74 vs. 0.06, p = 0.028), pruritis (2.53 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001), erythema (4.24 vs. 2.0, p <0.001), telangiectasias (1.0 vs. 0.28, p = 0.021). Additionally, patients receiving moderate hypofractionation reported significantly worse changes from baseline at EOT in breast tenderness (-2.25 vs. -.86, p = 0.02), telangiectasia (-0.81 vs. 0.18, p = 0.012), skin discoloration (-4.31 vs. -1.04, p < 0.001), skin flaking or peeling (-.55 vs. 0.04, p = 0.053), blistering (-0.82 vs. -0.07, p = 0.033), and pruritus (-2.27 vs. -.67, p = 0.002). There was a return to baseline in all patient-reported breast domains by 3 months (p >0.05) in both arms.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-hypofractionated whole breast irradiation, consisting of 25 Gy in 5 fractions, provided comparable provider assessed toxicity and cosmetic outcomes to 40 Gy in 15 fractions. At the EOT assessment, ultra-hypofractionation had a better patient reported toxicity profile. Our findings provide further evidence to support daily ultra-hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy as an appropriate treatment option for early-stage breast cancer.

Sensitivity of the PROMIS-10 for Capturing Radiation-Related Quality of Life Changes

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming more common when assessing the effects of radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of the Mental and Physical domains of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 (PROMIS-10) to radiotherapy and determine what predictors were associated with change in quality of life.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients, regardless of cancer type, were enrolled on a multi-site prospective registry. Inclusion criteria included curative radiotherapy and completion of the PROMIS-10 prior to treatment (Baseline) and at End of Treatment (EOT). To assess the strongest predictors of change in the T score of mental and physical health, we included 14 demographic characteristics and treatment variables in a multivariable stepwise regression.

RESULTS

A total of 7,586 patients were eligible for the analysis. The median age was 65 (range 18-94), 54% were males, and 94% were white. A majority received photons (62.5%) and the others received protons (37.5%) with an average dose of 52.3 Gy (range 20-80 Gy) over an average of 22.6 fractions (range 1-66). Patient disease sites were sub-grouped into 12 categories: Breast (25.5%), GU (23.0%), H&N (11.1%), CNS (8.5%), Pancreas-Biliary (6.7%), Thoracic (5.7%), Soft Tissue/Bone (5.0%), Esophagus-Gastric (4.7%), Colorectal-Anus (4.4%), Heme/Lymph (2.6%), GYN (1.8%), and Skin/Melanoma (1.0%). For both outcomes, the model selected disease group as an important predictor and it explained the most variance in the outcome compared to the rest of the predictors. When probing the effect of disease group, H&N, Esophagus-Gastric, Skin/Melanoma, and Colorectal-Anus had the largest mean decrease in quality of life for both domains. For mental health, the model also selected radiation type. Patients treated with protons indicated a bigger decrease in mental health compared to patients treated with photons (b = 0.43, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.69). For physical health, the model selected total fractions, ethnicity, and T stage. As number of fractions increased, the physical health change scores became more negative, on average (b = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05, -0.01). Hispanic/Latino patients indicated a smaller decrease in physical health compared to White (b = -1.50, 95% CI: -2.60, -0.40) and Unknown ethnicity patients (b = -1.82, 95% CI: -3.36, -0.27). Finally, patients with a T stage of 3 or greater indicated a smaller decrease in physical health than patients with a T stage less than 3 (b = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.35, 1.16).

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS-10 did not capture significant change for patients undergoing curative radiotherapy except for patients with Head & Neck, Esophagus-Gastric, Skin, and Colorectal-Anus cancer. Further analyses should explore which patients experience the greatest change in quality of life within disease group.

Proton vs. Photons for Breast Cancer Patients with Immediate, Implant-Based Reconstruction Receiving Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Proton therapy improves postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) normal tissue sparing compared with photon techniques. However, little is understood about its effect on reconstruction outcomes. The primary objective was to evaluate complication rates in breast cancer patients treated with proton (PRO) versus photon (PHO) PMRT following immediate, implant-based breast reconstruction.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Consecutive patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with a tissue expander (TE) or permanent implant (PI) and PRO or PHO PMRT between 2011 and 2022 were included from two institutions. Complication rate was defined as the sum of reconstruction failure (explantation without replacement), unplanned prosthesis exchange, and other unplanned revisional surgery. Each complication type was analyzed as an independent endpoint.

RESULTS

Among 733 patients, median follow-up was 4.4 years; 36.5% (267) were treated with PRO and 63.5% (466) with PHO. There was no difference in age, BMI, or comorbidities between the two groups. PRO was more likely to have had, two-stage reconstruction and pre-pectoral implant placement (p<.01). Median dose was 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions, with only 50 receiving hypofractionation. Bolus was used in all PHO patients. Regional nodes were more likely to be included in PRO (99.6% v. 83.7% PHO, p<.01). Although there was no difference in the use of chest wall boost between groups, the axillary nodes were more frequently boosted in PRO (25.1% vs 2.8% PHO, p<.01). The overall rate of complications at 4 years was 26.7% (95% CI = 23.3-30.5). The 4-year rate of reconstruction failure, unplanned exchange, and other surgery was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.3-10.7), 17.4% (95% CI = 14.6-20.8), and 12.5% (95% CI = 10.1-15.5), respectively. On MVA, PRO did not confer an increased risk of reconstruction complications compared to PHO. Significant risk factors for reconstruction failure included TE-to-autologous approach [HR versus direct-to-implant reference: 4.05 (95% CI = 1.60-10.22)], TE-to-permanent implant approach [HR = 2.06 (95% CI = 1.12-3.79)], chest wall boost [HR = 2.20 (95% CI = 1.21-4.02)], and any lymph node boost [HR = 2.33 (95% CI = 1.10-4.97)]. Compared to direct-to-implant, two-stage reconstruction was also associated with a higher rate of unplanned exchange [HR for TE/PI = 1.49 (95% CI = 1.01-2.20)] and revisional surgery [HR for TE-to-autologous = 3.95 (95% CI = 1.64-9.52)]. Prepectoral implant placement was correlated with reduced risk of revisional surgery, relative to subpectoral placement [HR = 0.42 (95% CI = 0.22-0.81)].

CONCLUSION

This represents the largest combined series to date comparing PRO and PHO PMRT. Despite a higher rate of two-stage reconstruction, nodal irradiation, and nodal boost in PRO, there was no significant difference in the risk of complications between protons and photons. Differences in PRO delivery techniques between institutions and dosimetric details such as skin dose will be presented in person.