1
|
Sharifzadeh Y, Breen WG, Harmsen WS, Amundson AC, Garda AE, Routman DM, Waddle MR, Merrell KW, Hallemeier CL, Laack NN, Kollengode A, Corbin KS. Integration of Telemedicine Consultation Into a Tertiary Radiation Oncology Department: Predictors of Use, Treatment Yield, and Effects on Patient Population. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2024; 8:e2300239. [PMID: 38630957 DOI: 10.1200/cci.23.00239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2023] [Revised: 02/01/2024] [Accepted: 02/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid expansion of telemedicine. The implications of telemedicine have not been rigorously studied in radiation oncology, a procedural specialty. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of in-person patients (IPPs) and virtual patients (VPs) who presented to a large cancer center before and during the pandemic and to understand variables affecting likelihood of receiving radiotherapy (yield) at our institution. METHODS A total of 17,915 patients presenting for new consultation between 2019 and 2021 were included, stratified by prepandemic and pandemic periods starting March 24, 2020. Telemedicine visits included video and telephone calls. Area deprivation indices (ADIs) were also compared. RESULTS The overall population was 56% male and 93% White with mean age of 63 years. During the pandemic, VPs accounted for 21% of visits, were on average younger than their in-person (IP) counterparts (63.3 years IP v 62.4 VP), and lived further away from clinic (215 miles IP v 402 VP). Among treated VPs, living closer to clinic was associated with higher yield (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P < .001). This was also seen among IPPs who received treatment (OR, 0.96; P < .001); however, the average distance from clinic was significantly lower for IPPs than VPs (205 miles IP v 349 VP). Specialized radiotherapy (proton and brachytherapy) was used more in VPs. IPPs had higher ADI than VPs. Among VPs, those treated had higher ADI (P < .001). CONCLUSION Patient characteristics and yield were significantly different between IPPs and VPs. Telemedicine increased reach to patients further away from clinic, including from rural or health care-deprived areas, allowing access to specialized radiation oncology care. Telemedicine has the potential to increase the reach of other technical and procedural specialties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - William G Breen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - William S Harmsen
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Adam C Amundson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Allison E Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | - Nadia N Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shah SM, Tanke LB, Deufel CL, Petersen IA, Corbin KS, Hodge DO, Olsen TW, Dalvin LA. Central subfield thickness predicts visual acuity outcomes in plaque-irradiated eyes with choroidal melanoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2024; 262:1305-1320. [PMID: 37950755 DOI: 10.1007/s00417-023-06313-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Revised: 10/20/2023] [Accepted: 10/30/2023] [Indexed: 11/13/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the association between pre-operative central subfield thickness (CST) and post-radiotherapy visual acuity (VA), cystoid macular edema (CME), and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) requirement. DESIGN Single-center retrospective study. PARTICIPANTS Patients with plaque-irradiated extramacular choroidal melanoma treated between 11/11/2011 and 4/30/2021. Pre-operative CST difference between the affected and unaffected eye was used. Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios were calculated. RESULTS Of 85 patients, pre-operative CST was greater in the melanoma-affected eye (vs. fellow eye) by mean of 20.4 μm (median 14.0, range - 60.0-182.0). Greater CST at presentation (vs. fellow eye) was associated with larger tumor diameter (p = 0.02), greater tumor thickness (p < 0.001), and more frequent tumor-related Bruch's membrane rupture (p = 0.006). On univariate analysis of outcome data, greater CST at presentation (vs. fellow eye) was associated with higher 5-year risk (1.09 [1.02-1.17], p = 0.02) of VA 20/200 or worse and increased (1.10 [1.01-1.20], p = 0.03) likelihood for anti-VEGF injections after plaque irradiation. There was no significant association with CME. The association between CST and VA outcome remained significant on multivariate analysis accounting for impact of tumor thickness and radiation dose to optic disc, while tumor distance to fovea was the only significant factor on multivariate analysis for anti-VEGF injections. CONCLUSION Greater CST at presentation (vs. fellow eye) was associated with worse VA outcome following plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma. Large-sized tumors may contribute to a higher intraocular VEGF burden, potentially leading to greater preoperative CST, which correlates with poor VA outcome post-plaque radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saumya M Shah
- Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Laurel B Tanke
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Christopher L Deufel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Ivy A Petersen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - David O Hodge
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Timothy W Olsen
- Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Lauren A Dalvin
- Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Laughlin BS, Corbin KS, Toesca DAS, Thorpe CS, Golafshar MA, Pockaj B, Cronin P, McGee LA, Halyard MY, Mutter RW, Keole SR, Park SS, Shumway DA, Vern-Gross TZ, Vallow L, Wong WW, DeWees TA, Vargas CE. Physician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes of the MC1635 Phase 3 Trial of Ultrahypofractionated Versus Moderately Hypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:1049-1059. [PMID: 37914139 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2023] [Revised: 09/21/2023] [Accepted: 10/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our aim was to report physician- and patient-reported outcomes of patients with localized breast cancer treated with moderate versus ultrahypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS AND MATERIALS Between February 2018 and February 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (pT0-3 pN0-1 M0) were offered participation in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing adjuvant moderate hypofractionation (MHF) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions versus ultrahypofractionation (UHF) to 25 Gy in 5 fractions after BCS, with an optional simultaneously integrated boost. Toxicities, cosmesis, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years from irradiation using validated metric tools. RESULTS One hundred seven patients were randomized to MHF (n = 54) or UHF (n = 53) adjuvant WBI. The median follow-up was 42.8 months. Grade 2 radiation dermatitis was experienced by 4 patients (7.4%) in the MHF arm and 2 patients (3.7%) in the UHF arm at EOT (P = .726). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. Deterioration of cosmesis by physician assessment was observed in 2 (6.7%) patients treated in the UHF arm and 1 (1.9%) patient treated in the MHF arm at EOT (P = .534), whereas at 3 months, only 1 (1.8%) patient treated in the MHF arm demonstrated deterioration of cosmesis (P = .315). At EOT, 91% and 94% of patients reported excellent/good cosmesis among those treated with MHF and UHF regimens, respectively (P = .550). At 3 months, more patients within the MHF arm reported excellent/good cosmesis compared with those in the UHF arm (100% vs 91%; P = .030). However, the difference in patient-reported cosmesis disappeared at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year time points. CONCLUSIONS UHF WBI showed similar treatment-related late toxicities and similar provider-scored cosmesis compared with MHF radiation in patients treated adjuvantly after BCS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Cameron S Thorpe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sanford Health, Fargo, North Dakota
| | - Michael A Golafshar
- Department of Qualitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Barbara Pockaj
- Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Patricia Cronin
- Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sameer R Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Laura Vallow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Todd A DeWees
- Department of Qualitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gao RW, Mullikin TC, Aziz KA, Afzal A, Smith NL, Routman DM, Gergelis KR, Harmsen WS, Remmes NB, Tseung HSWC, Shiraishi SS, Boughey JC, Ruddy KJ, Harless CA, Garda AE, Waddle MR, Park SS, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:846-856. [PMID: 37244627 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2023] [Revised: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT. RESULTS A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm. CONCLUSIONS With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Khaled A Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Na L Smith
- Sanford Cancer Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - William S Harmsen
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Allison E Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Yang Y, Gergelis KR, Shen J, Afzal A, Mullikin TC, Gao RW, Aziz K, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Liu W, Mutter RW. Study of linear energy transfer effect on rib fracture in breast patients receiving pencil-beamscanning proton therapy. ArXiv 2023:arXiv:2310.20527v1. [PMID: 37961731 PMCID: PMC10635309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To study the effect of proton linear energy transfer (LET) on rib fracture in breast cancer patients treated with pencil-beam scanning proton therapy (PBS) using a novel tool of dose-LET volume histogram (DLVH). Methods From a prospective registry of patients treated with post-mastectomy proton therapy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes for breast cancer between 2015 and 2020, we retrospectively identified rib fracture cases detected after completing treatment. Contemporaneously treated control patients that did not develop rib fracture were matched to patients 2:1 considering prescription dose, boost location, reconstruction status, laterality, chest wall thickness, and treatment year.The DLVH index, V(d, l), defined as volume(V) of the structure with at least dose(d) and LET(l), was calculated. DLVH plots between the fracture and control group were compared. Conditional logistic regression (CLR) model was used to establish the relation of V(d, l) and the observed fracture at each combination of d and l. The p-value derived from CLR model shows the statistical difference between fracture patients and the matched control group. Using the 2D p-value map derived from CLR model, the DLVH features associated with the patient outcomes were extracted. Results Seven rib fracture patients were identified, and fourteen matched patients were selected for the control group. The median time from the completion of proton therapy to rib fracture diagnosis was 12 months (range 5 to 14 months). Two patients had grade 2 symptomatic rib fracture while the remaining 5 were grade 1 incidentally detected on imaging. The derived p-value map demonstrated larger V(0-36Gy[RBE], 4.0-5.0 keV/μm) in patients experiencing fracture (p<0.1). For example, the p value for V(30 Gy[RBE], 4.0 keV/um) was 0.069. Conclusions In breast cancer patients receiving PBS, a larger volume of chest wall receiving moderate dose and high LET may result in increased risk of rib fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yunze Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Kimberly R Gergelis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Khaled Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Department of Pharmacology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abbasi MA, Bruno G, Di Stefano C, Garcia Bello L, Laack NN, Corbin KS, Whitaker TJ, Pellikka PA, Mutter RW, Villarraga HR. Detection of Early Myocardial Dysfunction by Imaging Biomarkers in Cancer Patients Undergoing Photon Beam vs. Proton Beam Radiotherapy: A Prospective Study. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 2023; 10:418. [PMID: 37887865 PMCID: PMC10607871 DOI: 10.3390/jcdd10100418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 09/30/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 10/28/2023] Open
Abstract
1. Background: We sought to determine acute and subacute changes in cardiac function after proton beam (PBT) and photon beam (PhT) radiotherapy (RT) using conventional and two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) in patients with malignant breast and thoracic tumors. 2. Methods: Between March 2016 and March 2017, 70 patients with breast or thoracic cancer were prospectively enrolled and underwent transthoracic echocardiography with comprehensive strain analysis at pretreatment, mid-treatment, end of treatment, and 3 months after RT. 3. Results: PBT was used to treat 44 patients; PhT 26 patients. Mean ± SD age was 55 ± 12 years; most patients (93%) were women. The median (interquartile range) of the mean heart dose was lower in the PBT than the PhT group (47 [27-79] vs. 217 [120-596] cGy, respectively; p < 0.001). Ejection fraction did not change in either group. Only the PhT group had reduced systolic tissue Doppler velocities at 3 months. 2D-STE showed changes in endocardial and epicardial longitudinal, radial, and circumferential early diastolic strain rate (SRe) in patients undergoing PhT (global longitudinal SRe, pretreatment vs. end of treatment (p = 0.04); global circumferential SRe, pretreatment vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.003); global radial SRe, pretreatment vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.02) for endocardial values). Epicardial strain values decreased significantly only in patients treated with PhT. Patients in the PhT group had a significant decrease in epicardial global longitudinal systolic strain rate (GLSRs) (epicardial GLSRs, at baseline vs. at end of treatment [p = 0.009]) and in GCSRe and GRSRe (epicardial GCSRe, at baseline vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.02); epicardial GRSRe, at baseline vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.03)) during treatment and follow-up. No changes on 2D-STE were detected in the PBT group. 4. Conclusions: Patients who underwent PhT but not PBT had reduced tissue Doppler velocities and SRe values during follow-up, suggesting early myocardial relaxation abnormalities. PBT shows promise as a cardiac-sparing RT technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Giulia Bruno
- Hypertension Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino, 3-10126 Torino, Italy
| | - Cristina Di Stefano
- Hypertension Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino, 3-10126 Torino, Italy
| | - Laura Garcia Bello
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Nadia N. Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | | | | | | | - Robert W. Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Department of Pharmacology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Laughlin BS, Corbin KS, Thorpe CS, Toesca DAS, Golafshar MA, McGee LA, Halyard M, Mutter RW, Keole SR, Park SS, Shumway D, Vallow LA, Vern-Gross TZ, Wong WW, DeWees TA, Vargas CE. 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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S6. [PMID: 37784534 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B S Laughlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - K S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - C S Thorpe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sanford Health, Fargo, ND
| | - D A S Toesca
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - M A Golafshar
- Department of Qualitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - L A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - M Halyard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - R W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - S R Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - S S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - D Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - L A Vallow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - T Z Vern-Gross
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - W W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - T A DeWees
- Department of Qualitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - C E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gunn HJ, DeWees TA, Voss MM, Corbin KS, Hallemeier CL, Stish BJ, Haddock MG, Petersen IA, Rule WG, Vallow LA, Brown PD, Olivier K, Trifiletti DM, Vargas CE, Ma DJ. Sensitivity of the PROMIS-10 for Capturing Radiation-Related Quality of Life Changes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e232-e233. [PMID: 37784929 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - T A DeWees
- Department of Qualitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - M M Voss
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
| | - K S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - B J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - M G Haddock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - I A Petersen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - W G Rule
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - L A Vallow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - P D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - K Olivier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - D M Trifiletti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - C E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - D J Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ioakeim-Ioannidou M, Gao RW, Dunn SA, Harmsen WS, Smith N, Mullikin TC, Harless C, Connoly J, Keenan JC, Boughey JC, Liu L, Shumway D, MacDonald SM, Corbin KS, Mutter RW, Ho AY. Proton vs. Photons for Breast Cancer Patients with Immediate, Implant-Based Reconstruction Receiving Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S175. [PMID: 37784435 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.644] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Ioakeim-Ioannidou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - R W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - S A Dunn
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - W S Harmsen
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - N Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - T C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Rochester, MN
| | - C Harless
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - J Connoly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, Boston, MA
| | - J C Keenan
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - J C Boughey
- Department of Breast Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - L Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, Boston, MA
| | - D Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - S M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - K S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - R W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - A Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mutter RW, Giri S, Fruth BF, Remmes NB, Boughey JC, Harless CA, Ruddy KJ, McGee LA, Afzal A, Gao RW, Shumway DA, Vern-Gross TZ, Villarraga HR, Kenison SL, Kang Y, Wong WW, Stish BJ, Merrell KW, Yan ES, Park SS, Corbin KS, Vargas CE. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:1083-1093. [PMID: 37696281 PMCID: PMC10591844 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00388-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. So far, studies investigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear. We aimed to compare conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS We did a randomised phase 2 trial (MC1631) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester (MN, USA) and Mayo Clinic in Arizona (Phoenix, AZ, USA) comparing conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) and hypofractionated (40·05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) proton PMRT. All patients were treated with pencil-beam scanning. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and breast cancer resected by mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either conventional fractionation or hypofractionation, with presence of immediate reconstruction (yes vs no) as a stratification factor, using a biased-coin minimisation algorithm. Any patient who received at least one fraction of protocol treatment was evaluable for the primary endpoint and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 24-month complication rate from the date of first radiotherapy, defined as grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring from 90 days after last radiotherapy or unplanned surgical interventions in patients with immediate reconstruction. The inferiority of hypofractionation would not be ruled out if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in 24-month complication rate between the two groups was greater than 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783690, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS Between June 2, 2016, and Aug 23, 2018, 88 patients were randomly assigned (44 to each group), of whom 82 received protocol treatment (41 in the conventional fractionation group and 41 in the hypofractionation group; median age of 52 years [IQR 44-64], 79 [96%] patients were White, two [2%] were Black or African American, one [1%] was Asian, and 79 [96%] were not of Hispanic ethnicity). As of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2023), the median follow-up was 39·3 months (IQR 37·5-61·2). The median mean heart dose was 0·54 Gy (IQR 0·30-0·72) for the conventional fractionation group and 0·49 Gy (0·25-0·64) for the hypofractionation group. Within 24 months of first radiotherapy, 14 protocol-defined complications occurred in six (15%) patients in the conventional fractionation group and in eight (20%) patients in the hypofractionation group (absolute difference 4·9% [one-sided 95% CI 18·5], p=0·27). The complications in the conventionally fractionated group were contracture (five [12%] of 41 patients]) and fat necrosis (one [2%] patient) requiring surgical intervention. All eight protocol-defined complications in the hypofractionation group were due to infections, three of which were acute infections that required surgical intervention, and five were late infections, four of which required surgical intervention. All 14 complications were in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. INTERPRETATION After a median follow-up of 39·3 months, non-inferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be established. However, given similar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients with and without immediate reconstruction. FUNDING The Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA, and the US National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| | - Sharmila Giri
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Briant F Fruth
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Yixiu Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth S Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Farah MH, Viola KE, Nayfeh T, Saadi S, Shah V, Hasan B, Shah S, Mohammed K, Riaz IB, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Wang Z. Partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2023; 115:1011-1019. [PMID: 37289549 PMCID: PMC10483267 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Revised: 05/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. CONCLUSIONS Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Magdoleen H Farah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kelly E Viola
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Tarek Nayfeh
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Samer Saadi
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Vishal Shah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Bashar Hasan
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sahrish Shah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Khaled Mohammed
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Irbaz Bin Riaz
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Larry J Prokop
- Library Public Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - M Hassan Murad
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, MN, USA
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kim H, Hieken TJ, Abraha F, Jakub JW, Corbin KS, Furutani KM, Boughey JC, Stish BJ, Deufel CL, Degnim AC, Shumway DA, Ahmed SK, Piltin MA, Sandhu NP, Conners AL, Ruddy KJ, Mutter RW, Park SS. Long-term outcomes of intraoperatively-placed applicator brachytherapy for rapid completion of breast conserving treatment: An analysis of a prospective registry data. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 41:100639. [PMID: 37251618 PMCID: PMC10212787 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2022] [Revised: 02/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose To evaluate the long-term outcome of accelerated partial breast irradiation utilizing intraoperatively placed applicator-based brachytherapy (ABB) in early-stage breast cancer. Materials and methods From our prospective registry, 223 patients with pTis-T2, pN0/pN1mic breast cancer were treated with ABB. The median treatment duration including surgery and ABB was 7 days. The prescribed doses were 32 Gy/8 fx BID (n = 25), 34 Gy/10 fx BID (n = 99), and 21 Gy/3 fx QD (n = 99). Endocrine therapy (ET) adherence was defined as completion of planned ET or ≥ 80% of the follow-up (FU) period. Cumulative incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) was estimated and influencing factors for IBTR-free survival rate (IBTRFS) were analyzed. Results 218/223 patients had hormone receptor-positive tumors, including 38 (17.0%) with Tis and 185 (83.0%) with invasive cancer. After a median FU of 63 months, 19 (8.5%) patients had recurrence [17 (7.6%) with an IBTR]. Rates of 5-year IBTRFS and DFS were 92.2% and 91.1%, respectively. The 5-year IBTRFS rates were significantly higher for post-menopausal women (93.6% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.04), BMI < 30 kg/m2 (97.4% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.02), and ET-adherence (97.5% vs. 88.6%, p = 0.02). IBTRFS did not differ with dose regimens. Conclusions Postmenopausal status, BMI < 30 kg/m2, and ET- adherence predicted favorable IBTRFS. Our results highlight the importance of careful patient selection for ABB and encouragement of ET compliance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haeyoung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University of School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | | | - Feven Abraha
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - James W. Jakub
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | | | | | | | - Bradley J. Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Amy C. Degnim
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Dean A. Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Safia K. Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Mara A. Piltin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Nicole P. Sandhu
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Amy L. Conners
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Robert W. Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sean S. Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Rummel KA, Gao RW, Francis LN, Petersen IA, Mutter RW, Corbin KS. Secondary breast angiosarcoma following accelerated partial breast irradiation with intracavitary multicatheter applicator brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2023; 22:487-490. [PMID: 37217416 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2023.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/20/2023] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is a rare complication of breast radiotherapy and is associated with a poor prognosis. There are many reported cases of secondary angiosarcoma following whole breast irradiation (WBI), however development of secondary angiosarcoma following brachytherapy-based accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is not as well characterized. METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed and reported a case of a patient who developed secondary angiosarcoma of the breast following intracavitary multicatheter applicator brachytherapy APBI. RESULTS A 69-year-old female was originally diagnosed with T1N0M0 invasive ductal carcinoma of the left breast and treated with lumpectomy followed by adjuvant intracavitary multicatheter applicator brachytherapy APBI. Seven years following her treatment, she developed secondary angiosarcoma. However, the diagnosis of secondary angiosarcoma was delayed due to nonspecific imaging findings and a negative biopsy. CONCLUSIONS Our case highlights the need for secondary angiosarcoma to be considered in the differential diagnosis when patients present with symptoms such as breast ecchymosis and skin thickening following WBI or APBI. Prompt diagnosis and referral to a high-volume sarcoma treatment center for multidisciplinary evaluation is vital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keaton A Rummel
- University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Bismarck, ND.
| | - Robert W Gao
- Mayo Clinic Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - Leah N Francis
- Mayo Clinic Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - Ivy A Petersen
- Mayo Clinic Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Grams MP, Deufel CL, Kavanaugh JA, Corbin KS, Ahmed SK, Haddock MG, Lester SC, Ma DJ, Petersen IA, Finley RR, Lang KG, Spreiter SS, Park SS, Owen D. Clinical aspects of spatially fractionated radiation therapy treatments. Phys Med 2023; 111:102616. [PMID: 37311338 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Revised: 05/06/2023] [Accepted: 05/30/2023] [Indexed: 06/15/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide clinical guidance for centers wishing to implement photon spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) treatments using either a brass grid or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lattice approach. METHODS We describe in detail processes which have been developed over the course of a 3-year period during which our institution treated over 240 SFRT cases. The importance of patient selection, along with aspects of simulation, treatment planning, quality assurance, and treatment delivery are discussed. Illustrative examples involving clinical cases are shown, and we discuss safety implications relevant to the heterogeneous dose distributions. RESULTS SFRT can be an effective modality for tumors which are otherwise challenging to manage with conventional radiation therapy techniques or for patients who have limited treatment options. However, SFRT has several aspects which differ drastically from conventional radiation therapy treatments. Therefore, the successful implementation of an SFRT treatment program requires the multidisciplinary expertise and collaboration of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, and radiation therapists. CONCLUSIONS We have described methods for patient selection, simulation, treatment planning, quality assurance and delivery of clinical SFRT treatments which were built upon our experience treating a large patient population with both a brass grid and VMAT lattice approach. Preclinical research and patient trials aimed at understanding the mechanism of action are needed to elucidate which patients may benefit most from SFRT, and ultimately expand its use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael P Grams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
| | - Christopher L Deufel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - James A Kavanaugh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Safia K Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Michael G Haddock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Scott C Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Daniel J Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Ivy A Petersen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Randi R Finley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Karen G Lang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Sheri S Spreiter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Wong WW, Hillman DW, Daniels TB, Vargas CE, Rwigema JC, Corbin KS, Keole SR, Merrell KW, Stish BJ, Pisansky TM, Davis BJ, Mitchell CM, Choo R. A Phase II prospective study of hypofractionated proton therapy of prostate and pelvic lymph nodes: Acute effects on patient-reported quality of life. Prostate 2022; 82:1338-1345. [PMID: 35789497 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2022] [Revised: 06/13/2022] [Accepted: 06/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to report acute changes in patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire in a prospective study using hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (H-IMPT) targeting the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS Fifty-five patients were enrolled. H-IMPT consisted of 45 GyE to the pelvic lymph nodes and 67.5 GyE to the prostate and seminal vesicles in 25 fractions. PRQOL was assessed with the urinary incontinence (UI), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and bowel function (BF) domains of EPIC-26 questionnaire. Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of treatment and 3 months posttreatment. A clinically meaningful change (or minimum important change) was defined as a score change > 50% of the baseline standard deviation. RESULTS The mean scores of UO, UI, and BF at baseline were 84.6, 91.1, and 95.3, respectively. At the end of treatment, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful declines in UO and BF scores (-13.5 and -2.3, respectively), while the decline in UI score was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful (-13.7). A clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores occurred in 53.5%, 22.7%, and 73.2% of the patients, respectively. At 3 months posttreatment, all three mean scores showed an improvement, with fewer patients having a clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores (18.4%, 20.5%, and 45.0%, respectively). There was no significant reduction in the mean UO and UI scores compared to baseline, although the mean BF score remained lower than baseline and the difference was clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS UO, UI, and BF scores of PRQOL declined at the end of H-IMPT. UO and UI scores showed improvement at 3 months posttreatment and were similar to the baseline scores. However, BF score remained lower at 3 months posttreatment with a clinically meaningful decline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - David W Hillman
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Thomas B Daniels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University, New York, New York, USA
| | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sameer R Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Kenneth W Merrell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Thomas M Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Cecilia M Mitchell
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Saraf A, Sim AJ, DeLeo AN, Jones BM, Sherer MV, Corrigan KL, Le AE, Lichter K, Razavian N, Vidal GS, Hutten R, LaVigne A, Merfeld E, Corbin KS, Yeung AR, Fields EC, Jimenez RB. TEAching Mentoring in Radiation Oncology (TEAMRO): a ROECSG GME multi-institutional pilot study on teaching mentorship skills to residents. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
17
|
De Leo AN, Ryckman JM, Fields EC, Jimenez R, Saraf A, Sherer M, Bates J, Ali N, Coutu B, Alfieri J, Randall J, Musunuru HB, Corbin KS, Hong DS, Yeung A. Treatment Plan Evaluation Workshops for Residents: Learning the ROPES (Radiation Oncology Plan Evaluation School). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.06.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
|
18
|
Alcorn SR, Corbin KS, Shumway DA. Integrating the Patient's Voice in Toxicity Reporting and Treatment Decisions for Breast Radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2022; 32:207-220. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2022.01.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
19
|
Shukla SS, Bhatt AA, Jakub JW, Solanki MH, Kaur AS, Liu MC, Corbin KS, Axmacher JA. Local Recurrence of Invasive Secretory Breast Carcinoma in a Gravid Patient Post-Mastectomy. Radiol Case Rep 2022; 17:1901-1904. [PMID: 35401896 PMCID: PMC8990053 DOI: 10.1016/j.radcr.2022.03.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2022] [Revised: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/02/2022] [Indexed: 10/30/2022] Open
Abstract
This is a case of locally recurrent invasive secretory carcinoma of the breast during pregnancy, detected as a palpable mass in the reconstructed right breast of a 32-year-old female at 24 weeks gestation. The patient was initially diagnosed with secretory carcinoma 8 years prior, for which she underwent nipple sparing mastectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Due to pregnancy, the recurrence was treated initially with conservative excision alone, followed by definitive management postpartum which included wide local excision, sentinel lymph node biopsy and adjuvant chest wall radiation. Secretory carcinoma of the breast is a rare cancer with a predilection for young age and indolent course. This case report describes an unusual case of recurrent secretory carcinoma, of interest due to both its diagnosis during pregnancy, and its recurrence after nipple sparing mastectomy.
Collapse
|
20
|
Garda AE, Hunzeker AE, Michel AK, Fattahi S, Shiraishi S, Remmes NB, Schultz HL, Harmsen WS, Shumway DA, Yan ES, Park SS, Mutter RW, Corbin KS. Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Bilateral Breast or Chest Wall and Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation for Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer: Initial Clinical Experience and Dosimetric Comparison. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100901. [PMID: 35647397 PMCID: PMC9133394 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) poses distinct challenges for radiation therapy planning. We report our proton therapy experience in treating patients with SBBC. We also provide a dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus photon therapy. Methods and Materials Patients with SBBC who received IMPT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the breast or chest wall and comprehensive regional lymph nodes, including axilla, supraclavicular fossa, and the internal mammary chain. Intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated with the goal that 90% of the CTV would recieve at least 90% of the prescription dose (D90>=90%). Comparisons between modalities were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Physician-reported acute toxic effects and photography were collected at baseline, end of treatment, and each follow-up visit. Results Between 2015 and 2018, 11 patients with SBBC were treated with IMPT. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The median CTV D90 was 99.9% for IMPT and 97.6% for VMAT (P = .001). The mean heart dose was 0.7 Gy versus 7.2 Gy (P = .001), the total lung mean dose was 7.8 Gy versus 17.3 Gy (P = .001), and the total lung volume recieving 20 Gy was 13.0% versus 27.4% (P = .001). The most common acute toxic effects were dermatitis (mostly grade 1-2 with 1 case of grade 3) and grade 1 to 2 fatigue. The most common toxic effects at the last-follow up (median, 32 months) were grade 1 skin hyperpigmentation, superficial fibrosis, and extremity lymphedema. No nondermatologic or nonfatigue adverse events of grade >1 were recorded. Conclusions Bilateral breast and/or chest wall and comprehensive nodal IMPT is technically feasible and associated with low rates of severe acute toxic effects. Treatment with IMPT offered improved target coverage and normal-tissue sparing compared with photon therapy. Long-term follow-up is ongoing to assess efficacy and toxic effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison E. Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Ann K. Michel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sayeh Fattahi
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Satomi Shiraishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - W. Scott Harmsen
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A. Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Elizabeth S. Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S. Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W. Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Dalvin LA, Deufel CL, Corbin KS, Petersen IA, Olsen TW, Roddy GW. Postradiation Optic Atrophy Is Associated With Intraocular Pressure and May Manifest With Neuroretinal Rim Thinning. J Neuroophthalmol 2022; 42:e159-e172. [PMID: 34812759 PMCID: PMC9358970 DOI: 10.1097/wno.0000000000001465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To determine risk factors for postradiation optic atrophy (PROA) after plaque radiotherapy for uveal melanoma. METHODS A single center, retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma involving choroid and/or ciliary body treated with plaque between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2016. Outcomes included development of PROA with pallor alone or with concomitant neuroretinal rim thinning (NRT). Cox regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PROA. RESULTS Of 78 plaque-irradiated patients, PROA developed in 41 (53%), with concomitant NRT in 15 (19%). Risk factors for PROA of any type included presentation with worse visual acuity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 5.6 [2.3-14.1], P < 0.001), higher baseline intraocular pressure (IOP; 14 vs 16 mm Hg) (1.1 [1.0-1.2], P = 0.03), shorter tumor distance to optic disc (1.3 [1.2-1.5], P < 0.001) and foveola (1.2 [1.1-1.3], P < 0.001), subfoveal subretinal fluid (3.8 [2.0-7.1], P < 0.001), greater radiation prescription depth (1.3 [1.1-1.6], P = 0.002), dose to fovea (point dose) (1.01 [1.01-1.02], P < 0.001), and mean (1.02 [1.02-1.03], P < 0.001) and maximum dose to optic disc per 1 Gy increase (1.02 [1.01-1.03], P < 0.001). On multivariate modeling, dose to disc, baseline IOP, and subfoveal fluid remained significant. Subanalysis revealed risk factors for pallor with NRT of greater mean radiation dose to disc (1.03 [1.01-1.05], P = 0.003), higher maximum IOP (17 vs 20 mm Hg) (1.4 [1.2-1.7], P < 0.001), and subfoveal fluid (12 [2-63], P = 0.004). CONCLUSION PROA may result in NRT in addition to optic disc pallor. Risk factors for PROA included higher radiation dose to optic disc, higher baseline IOP, and subfoveal fluid. Higher maximum IOP contributed to concomitant NRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren A Dalvin
- Departments of Ophthalmology (LAD, TWO, GWR) and Medical Physics (CLD), and Radiation Oncology (KSC, IAP), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Kowalchuk RO, Corbin KS, Jimenez RB. Particle Therapy for Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14041066. [PMID: 35205814 PMCID: PMC8870138 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14041066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Revised: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Particle therapy has received increasing attention in the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical properties that may enhance patient quality of life and reduce the late effects of therapy. In this review, we will examine the rationale for the use of proton and carbon therapy in the treatment of breast cancer and highlight their potential for sparing normal tissue injury. We will discuss the early dosimetric and clinical studies that have been pursued to date in this domain before focusing on the remaining open questions limiting the widespread adoption of particle therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman O. Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; (R.O.K.); (K.S.C.)
| | - Kimberly S. Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; (R.O.K.); (K.S.C.)
| | - Rachel B. Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Improving the Therapeutic Ratio Among Older Women With Early Stage Breast Cancer by Reevaluating Adjuvant Radiation Therapy and Hormone Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:52-55. [PMID: 34919883 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Gergelis KR, Anand US, Rian JS, Roberts KW, Quinones PJ, Olivier KR, Corbin KS, Stonnington CM. Integrating a Grassroots Well-Being Curriculum into a Radiation Oncology Residency Program. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 7:100837. [PMID: 34934867 PMCID: PMC8654639 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100837] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 10/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The burnout rate among US radiation oncology residents was 33% in 2016. To our knowledge there are no published interventions addressing burnout among radiation oncology residents. We describe the implementation of a well-being curriculum, cocreated by a psychologist, a medical humanities professional, and radiation oncology attending and resident physicians. Methods and Materials Radiation oncology residents at our institution were surveyed to determine themes that induced burnout. A curriculum was developed, with monthly small group sessions focused on 1 identified topic. Sessions alternated between psychological tool-focused approaches and humanities exercises. These were led by a psychologist or medical humanities professional. Residents were given protected time to attend sessions during business hours. Participation was optional. Participants were assigned a random identifier, and the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) was assessed at baseline and 3-month intervals. PFI trends were analyzed after 1 year. At the end of the year, a focus group was held to evaluate work satisfaction and self-reported interactions with patients and coworkers. This information was used to improve the curriculum. Results All 12 residents in the radiation oncology program participated in the curriculum. There was an equal number of residents of postgraduate years 2 through 5. Six of the participants were female. Of the participants, 11 completed the PFI. At baseline, 80% of residents met criteria for burnout. This decreased to 67%, 50%, and 33% at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. The proportion of residents meeting criteria for very good professional fulfillment was 30%, 56%, 38%, and 22% at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. On average, 9 of 12 residents attended each session. Conclusions Our experience demonstrates the feasibility of collaborating with residents in the development of a well-being curriculum to cater programming to their needs, which we believe led to excellent engagement and attendance at each session.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Uma S Anand
- Department of Student Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Academic and Staff Assistance Program, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, California
| | - Johanna S Rian
- Dolores Jean Lavins Center for Humanities in Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kristofer W Roberts
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Radiation Oncology Associates, Concord, New Hampshire
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Sae-Kho TM, Bhatt A, Solanki MH, Jeans EB, Corbin KS, Fazzio RT, Glazebrook KN. Imaging features of adenosquamous carcinoma of the breast – A rare variant of metaplastic breast carcinoma. BJR Case Rep 2021; 7:20210108. [PMID: 35300231 PMCID: PMC8906157 DOI: 10.1259/bjrcr.20210108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 07/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Adenosquamous carcinoma of the breast is a rare subtype of metaplastic carcinoma, which accounts for <1% of invasive breast malignancy. Metaplastic carcinoma is usually high grade and aggressive with typically reported benign imaging features when compared to invasive ductal carcinoma. However, the adenosquamous variant is a subtype with a more favorable prognosis. Within the literature, there is limited imaging description with case studies focusing on metaplastic carcinoma. Herein, we report seven cases of the adenosquamous subtype describing the imaging findings with correlation to clinical history and pathology. The majority of patients (n = 6) presented with palpable breast masses. One patient was identified through screening mammography. Mammographically (n = 6), tumors appeared as irregular masses. Sonographically (n = 7), tumors appeared as irregular masses ranging from solid to mixed solid/cystic masses. On MRI (n = 1), one tumor appeared as an irregular rim enhancing mass. FDG PET/CT (n = 2) and whole-body bone scan (n = 1) were also available for review. The majority of tumors were low-grade (n = 6) with only one high-grade tumor. This case series of seven patients demonstrated predominantly suspicious imaging features despite the majority being low-grade tumors.
Collapse
|
26
|
Xu TT, Pulido JS, Deufel CL, Corbin KS, Petersen IA, Dalvin LA. Clinical outcomes of Modified Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study IRIS plaques for treatment of iris, iridociliary, and ciliary body melanoma. Eye (Lond) 2021; 35:2754-2762. [PMID: 33235338 PMCID: PMC8452726 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-01295-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES To report clinical outcomes of modified Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study IRIS (COMS IRIS) plaques for treatment of iris, iridociliary, and ciliary body melanoma. SUBJECTS/METHODS Retrospective, single-centre cohort study of iris melanoma treated with COMS IRIS plaque radiotherapy from July 26, 2010 to October 15, 2018. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, tumour features, treatment parameters, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS There were 22 cases, diagnosed at mean age of 59 years (median 65, range 21-85 years) with female sex in 14 (64%). Presenting tumour features included Snellen visual acuity (VA) ≥ 20/40 in 18 (82%) cases, mean largest tumour basal diameter 4.7 mm (median 3.9, range 2.3-13.8 mm) and thickness 1.7 mm (median 1.6 mm, range 0.8-3.9 mm), iris stromal seeding in 3 (14%) cases, angle seeding in 16 (73%), and ciliary body involvement in 13 (59%). After mean follow-up of 51 months (median 44, range 4-113 months), Snellen VA was ≥20/40 in 14 (64%) cases, with local tumour recurrence in 2 (9%), and enucleation in 2 (9%). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier estimated risk of local tumour recurrence was 7%. The most common radiation side effects were cataract in 17 (77%) patients and dry eye in 5 (23%). Systemic metastasis occurred in no cases, and 1 (5%) non-melanoma-related death due to natural causes was observed at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS COMS IRIS plaques are effective for treatment of iris, iridociliary, and ciliary body melanoma with modest VA outcomes and low frequency of local tumour recurrence, enucleation, radiation side effects, and systemic metastasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy T. Xu
- grid.66875.3a0000 0004 0459 167XAlix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - Jose S. Pulido
- grid.66875.3a0000 0004 0459 167XDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - Christopher L. Deufel
- grid.66875.3a0000 0004 0459 167XDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - Kimberly S. Corbin
- grid.66875.3a0000 0004 0459 167XDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - Ivy A. Petersen
- grid.66875.3a0000 0004 0459 167XDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - Lauren A. Dalvin
- grid.66875.3a0000 0004 0459 167XDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Arbab M, Holmes JA, Olivier KR, Fields EC, Corbin KS, Kahn JM, Zellars RC, Haywood AM. Integrating Radiation Oncology Into Undergraduate Medical Education. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100765. [PMID: 34522827 PMCID: PMC8426518 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100765] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 07/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer is one of the most important public health problems. However, medical education has not advanced at the same rate when it comes to cancer education. Currently, the United States Medical Licensing Examination subject examinations do not cover radiation oncology, prevention, and survivorship planning in its assessment model. Incorporating medical oncology and radiation oncology training into the undergraduate medical education curriculum can have a significant benefit in training future physicians. In this paper, we review current literature and propose some ideas that can help incorporate oncology, and specifically radiation oncology, into undergraduate medical education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mona Arbab
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Jordan A Holmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | | | - Emma C Fields
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | | | - Jenna M Kahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Richard C Zellars
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Antwione M Haywood
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Tonneson JE, Hoskin TL, Durgan DM, Corbin KS, Goetz MP, Boughey JC. ASO Visual Abstract: Decreasing the Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery in Women Over 70 Years Old with Hormone Receptor Positive Breast Cancer and the Impact on Adjuvant Radiation and Hormonal Therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2021. [PMID: 34392459 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10476-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer E Tonneson
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Tanya L Hoskin
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - Diane M Durgan
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | | | - Matthew P Goetz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Tonneson JE, Hoskin TL, Durgan DM, Corbin KS, Goetz MP, Boughey JC. Decreasing the Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery in Women Older than 70 Years with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer and the Impact on Adjuvant Radiation and Hormonal Therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:8766-8774. [PMID: 34258721 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10407-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2016, SSO Choosing Wisely guidelines recommended against routine sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery in women ≥ 70 with HR+ cN0 breast cancer. Following this, we identified a group of women at low-risk of nodal positivity where SLN may be omitted (grade 1, cT1mi-T1c, or grade 2, cT1mi-T1b). This study evaluates the impact of these changes on our practice. METHODS Retrospective chart review of women aged ≥ 70 years with HR+ cN0 breast cancer at our institution from 2010 to 2020. We compared SLN use before (2010-2016)/after (2017-2020) guideline release according to clinical risk and the association with adjuvant therapy. RESULTS A total of 1015 breast cancers in 987 women identified. SLN surgery rate significantly decreased from 90.6% (2010-2016) to 62.8% in 2020 (p < 0.001). This was driven by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with SLN rates of 88.2% (2010-2016) and 46.7% in 2020. During 2017-2020, SLN use varied by risk within BCS patients: 52.2% low-risk, 81.9% higher-risk, p < 0.001. In contrast, in mastectomy patients SLN was performed in ≥ 98% regardless of risk level. SLN positivity was 13.4% overall: 7.4% in low-risk and 20.8% in higher-risk, p < 0.001. After adjusting for age and clinical risk, SLN use was not associated with adjuvant radiation [odds ratio (OR) 1.61, p = 0.11] or endocrine therapy (OR 1.12, p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS The Society of Surgical Oncology guideline release, followed by implementation of a clinical tool to stratify by nodal risk, was associated with decreased SLN use in women aged ≥ 70 years, in those with clinically low-risk HR+ disease surgically treated with BCS. Adjusting for confounders, omission of SLN surgery was not associated with use of subsequent adjuvant radiation or hormonal therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer E Tonneson
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, USA
| | - Tanya L Hoskin
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, USA
| | - Diane M Durgan
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, USA
| | | | - Matthew P Goetz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, USA
| | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Deufel CL, McCauley Cutsinger S, Corbin KS, Dalvin LA, Petersen IA. EyeDose: An open-source tool for using published Monte Carlo results to estimate the radiation dose delivered to the tumor and critical ocular structures for 125I Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study eye plaques. Brachytherapy 2020; 20:189-199. [PMID: 33187821 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2020.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2020] [Revised: 08/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation side effects and visual outcome for uveal melanoma patients managed with plaque radiotherapy are dependent on the radiation dose administered to the tumor and nearby healthy tissues. We have developed an open-source software tool, EyeDose, to simplify and standardize tumor and critical structure dose reporting for Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study eye plaques. METHODS AND MATERIALS EyeDose is a MATLAB-based program that calculates point dose and volume dose metrics for standard models of the tumor and critical ocular structures. It uses published three-dimensional dose distributions for eye plaques, calculated with Monte Carlo methods, which are oriented with respect to the eye using the tumor's position on a fundus diagram. A standard model for the ocular structures was created using published measurements and patient CT scans. EyeDose reports radiation statistics for the fovea, optic disc, lens, lacrimal gland, retina, and tumor. The dosimetric margin for implant placement uncertainty is also calculated. RESULTS EyeDose calculations were validated against previously published Monte Carlo results for eight different tumor positions, including the dose to the fovea, optic disc, lacrimal gland, lens, and along the central axis. EyeDose accepts a spreadsheet input for rapidly processing large retrospective patient data sets, with an average run time of <40 s per patient. EyeDose is published as an open-source tool for easy adaptation at different institutions. CONCLUSIONS EyeDose calculates radiation statistics for Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study eye plaque patients with Monte Carlo accuracy and without a treatment planning system. EyeDose streamlines data collection for large retrospective studies and can also be used prospectively to assess plaque applicability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Ivy A Petersen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Jeans EB, Beard TB, Boon AL, Brown PD, Ma DJ, Petersen IA, Laack NN, Foote RL, Corbin KS, Olivier KR. Empowering Residents into Independent Practice: A Single-Institutional Endeavor Aimed at Developing Resident Autonomy Through Implementation of a Chief Resident Service in Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:23-26. [PMID: 32277921 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2019] [Revised: 01/02/2020] [Accepted: 01/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Teresa B Beard
- Department of Medicare Regulation and Reimbursement, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Ashton L Boon
- Department of Legal Counsel, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Daniel J Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Ivy A Petersen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Nadia N Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Kenneth R Olivier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Ma DJ, Price KA, Moore EJ, Patel SH, Hinni ML, Garcia JJ, Graner DE, Neben-Wittich M, Garces YI, Chintakuntlawar AV, Price DL, Van Abel KM, Kasperbauer JL, Janus JR, Waddle M, Miller RC, Shiraishi S, Mutter RW, Corbin KS, Park SS, Foote RL. Reply to A.S. Garden. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:3559-3560. [PMID: 31557088 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.02144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel J Ma
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Katharine A Price
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Eric J Moore
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Samir H Patel
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Michael L Hinni
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Joaquin J Garcia
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Darlene E Graner
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Michelle Neben-Wittich
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Yolanda I Garces
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Ashish V Chintakuntlawar
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Daniel L Price
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Kathryn M Van Abel
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jan L Kasperbauer
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jeffrey R Janus
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Mark Waddle
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Robert C Miller
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Satomi Shiraishi
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Sean S Park
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Robert L Foote
- Daniel J. Ma, MD; Katharine A. Price, MD; and Eric J. Moore, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Samir H. Patel, MD and Michael L. Hinni, MD, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Joaquin J. Garcia, MD; Darlene E. Graner, SLPD; Michelle Neben-Wittich, MD; Yolanda I. Garces, MD; Ashish V. Chintakuntlawar, MBBS, PhD; Daniel L. Price, MD; Kathryn M. Van Abel, MD; Jan L. Kasperbauer, MD; and Jeffrey R. Janus, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mark Waddle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Robert C. Miller, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and Satomi Shiraishi, PhD; Robert W. Mutter, MD; Kimberly S. Corbin, MD; Sean S. Park, MD, PhD; and Robert L. Foote, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Mutter RW, Jethwa KR, Gonuguntla K, Remmes NB, Whitaker TJ, Hieken TJ, Ruddy KJ, McGee LA, Corbin KS, Park SS. 3 fraction pencil-beam scanning proton accelerated partial breast irradiation: early provider and patient reported outcomes of a novel regimen. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:211. [PMID: 31752934 PMCID: PMC6873533 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1417-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Accepted: 11/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose To report dosimetry and early adverse effects, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of a prospective study of 3-fraction pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton accelerated partial irradiation (APBI). Materials and methods Eligibility included women age ≥ 50 years with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), sentinel lymph node negative invasive or in-situ breast cancer measuring ≤2.5 cm. The prescription was 21.9 Gy (RBE 1.1) in 3 daily fractions to the post-operative tumor bed with a 1 cm expansion. Toxicities were collected using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, 10-point Linear Analog Scale Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the CTCAE, and the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale. Results Seventy-six women were treated between 2015 and 2017. The median breast volume receiving 50% of prescription or more was 28%. Median mean heart, mean ipsilateral lung, and maximum skin dose were 0 Gy, 0.1 Gy, and 20.6 Gy, respectively. With a median follow-up of 12 months, no treatment-related toxicity grade ≥ 2 has been observed. Most common grade 1 adverse events were dermatitis (68%) and skin hyperpigmentation (18%). At 12 months, the only persistent toxicities were one patient with grade 1 breast edema and one patient with a grade 1 seroma. 90% of patients reported quality of life as ≥7 out of 10 (0 indicating “as bad as it can be” and 10 indicating “as good as it can be”) and 98% of patients reported excellent or good cosmesis. Conclusion 3-fraction PBS proton APBI is well tolerated with low rates of physician and patient reported early adverse effects. Follow-up is ongoing to assess late toxicities and disease control outcomes. Further investigation of this novel adjuvant treatment strategy is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Karthik Gonuguntla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Nicholas B Remmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Thomas J Whitaker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Lang K, Loritz B, Schwartz A, Hunzeker A, Lenards N, Culp L, Finley R, Corbin KS. Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy and a hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy and segmented field-in-field technique for postmastectomy chest wall and regional lymph node irradiation. Med Dosim 2019; 45:121-127. [PMID: 31570239 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2019.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2018] [Revised: 07/28/2019] [Accepted: 08/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Decreasing radiotoxicity to the heart, lungs, and contralateral breast has proven to lower the risk of secondary malignancy and improve overall outcomes when treating chest wall (CW) and regional lymph nodes in postmastectomy breast cancer patients. In this retrospective study, 11 postmastectomy patients were selected and planned with a novel hybrid treatment method and a traditional volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) approach for comparison. This hybrid technique was able to optimize tangential beams to minimize heart dose and the VMAT contribution to improve dose conformity around the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, this hybrid technique produced more homogenous target dose coverage and demonstrated a decrease of integral dose to organs at risk (OAR), while the VMAT technique demonstrated a higher affinity for maintaining dose conformity. Further observation of dose distributions also revealed that the hybrid plans were more effective in sparing low-dose spread to healthy tissue in both right- and left-sided cases. This observation was made evident by the reduction in heart V5 and Dmean, decreases in all parameters regarding the contralateral lung, as well as all values other than the V20 of the ipsilateral lung. This unique hybrid planning technique could present an alternative to standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning when treating postmastectomy CW and regional lymph nodes, as it has shown the capacity to decrease cardiac, lung, and contralateral breast toxicity while maintaining quality PTV coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen Lang
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA.
| | - Brianne Loritz
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| | - Adam Schwartz
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| | - Ashley Hunzeker
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| | - Nishele Lenards
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| | - Lee Culp
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| | - Randi Finley
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Medical Dosimetry Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 1725 State St, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Mutter RW, Jethwa KR, Wan Chan Tseung HS, Wick SM, Kahila MMH, Viehman JK, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Park SS, Remmes NB, Whitaker TJ, Beltran CJ. Incorporation of Biologic Response Variance Modeling Into the Clinic: Limiting Risk of Brachial Plexopathy and Other Late Effects of Breast Cancer Proton Beam Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 10:e71-e81. [PMID: 31494289 PMCID: PMC7734652 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose: The relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) rises with increasing linear energy transfer toward the end of proton tracks. Presently, there is no consensus on how RBE heterogeneity should be accounted for in breast cancer proton therapy treatment planning. Our purpose was to determine the dosimetric consequences of incorporating a brachial plexus (BP) biologic dose constraint and to describe other clinical implications of biologic planning. Methods and Materials: We instituted a biologic dose constraint for the BP in the context of MC1631, a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). IMPT plans of 13 patients treated before the implementation of the biologic dose constraint (cohort A) were compared with IMPT plans of 38 patients treated on MC1631 after its implementation (cohort B) using (1) a commercially available Eclipse treatment planning system (RBE = 1.1); (2) an in-house graphic processor unit-based Monte Carlo physical dose simulation (RBE = 1.1); and (3) an in-house Monte Carlo biologic dose (MCBD) simulation that assumes a linear relationship between RBE and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (product of RBE and physical dose = biologic dose). Results: Before implementation of a BP biologic dose constraint, the Eclipse mean BP D0.01 cm3 was 107%, and the MCBD estimate was 128% (ie, 64 Gy [RBE = biologic dose] in 25 fractions for a 50-Gy [RBE = 1.1] prescription), compared with 100.0% and 116.0%, respectively, after the implementation of the constraint. Implementation of the BP biologic dose constraint did not significantly affect clinical target volume coverage. MCBD plans predicted greater internal mammary node coverage and higher heart dose than Eclipse plans. Conclusions: Institution of a BP biologic dose constraint may reduce brachial plexopathy risk without compromising target coverage. MCBD plan evaluation provides valuable information to physicians that may assist in making clinical judgments regarding relative priority of target coverage versus normal tissue sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Stephanie M Wick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Jason K Viehman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Jethwa KR, Park SS, Gonuguntla K, Wick SM, Vallow LA, Deufel CL, Whitaker TJ, Furutani KM, Ruddy KJ, Corbin KS, Hieken TJ, Mutter RW. In Reply to Hannoun-Levi and Hannoun. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:1177-1179. [PMID: 31039420 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2019] [Revised: 04/11/2019] [Accepted: 04/13/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Stephanie M Wick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Laura A Vallow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | | | | | - Keith M Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Smith NL, Jethwa KR, Viehman JK, Harmsen WS, Gonuguntla K, Elswick SM, Grauberger JN, Amundson AC, Whitaker TJ, Remmes NB, Harless CA, Boughey JC, Nguyen MDT, Park SS, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Post-mastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy after immediate breast reconstruction: Initial report of reconstruction outcomes and predictors of complications. Radiother Oncol 2019; 140:76-83. [PMID: 31185327 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2019] [Revised: 05/16/2019] [Accepted: 05/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report reconstructive outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) following immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS Consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR and post-mastectomy IMPT were included. Clinical characteristics, dosimetry, and acute toxicity were collected prospectively and reconstruction complications retrospectively. RESULTS Fifty-one women were treated between 2015 and 2017. Forty-two had bilateral reconstruction with unilateral IMPT. The non-irradiated contralateral breasts served as controls. Conventional fractionation (median 50 Gy/25 fractions) was administered in 37 (73%) and hypofractionation (median 40.5 Gy/15 fractions) in 14 (27%) patients. Median mean heart, ipsilateral lung V20Gy, and CTV-IMN V95% were 0.6 Gy, 13.9%, and 97.4%. Maximal acute dermatitis grade was 1 in 32 (63%), 2 in 17 (33%), and 3 in 2 (4%) patients. Surgical site infection (hazard ratio [HR] 13.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-104.03, p = 0.0012), and unplanned surgical intervention (HR 9.86, 95% CI 1.24-78.67, p = 0.0068) were more common in irradiated breasts. Eight of 51 irradiated breasts and 2 of 42 non-irradiated breasts had reconstruction failure (HR 3.59, 95% CI 0.78-16.41, p = 0.084). Among irradiated breasts, hypofractionation was significantly associated with reconstruction failure (HR 4.99, 95% CI 1.24-20.05, p = 0.024), as was older patient age (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS IMPT following IBR spared underlying organs and had low rates of acute toxicity. Reconstruction complications are more common in irradiated breasts, and reconstructive outcomes appear comparable with photon literature. Hypofractionation was associated with higher reconstruction failure rates. Further investigation of optimal dose-fractionation after IBR is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Na L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | - Jason K Viehman
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - William S Harmsen
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | | | | | - Adam C Amundson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Wilhite TJ, Youland RS, Tian S, Finley RR, Sarkaria JN, Corbin KS. Pathogenic Germ Line Variants in a Patient With Severe Toxicity From Breast Radiotherapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2019; 19:e400-e405. [PMID: 31031124 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2018] [Revised: 02/15/2019] [Accepted: 03/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler J Wilhite
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Ryan S Youland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Shulan Tian
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Randi R Finley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jann N Sarkaria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Whitaker TJ, Routman DM, Schultz H, Harmsen WS, Corbin KS, Wong WW, Choo R. IMPT versus VMAT for Pelvic Nodal Irradiation in Prostate Cancer: A Dosimetric Comparison. Int J Part Ther 2019; 5:11-23. [PMID: 31788504 PMCID: PMC6874187 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-18-00048.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2018] [Accepted: 01/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: To compare dosimetric data of the organs at risk (OARs) and clinical target volumes (CTVs) between intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients undergoing prostate and elective, pelvic lymph node radiotherapy in the setting of unfavorable, intermediate and high-risk prostate carcinoma. Methods and Materials: A study of moderately hypofractionated proton therapy (6750 centigray [cGy] in 25 fractions) is in progress for unfavorable, intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer where treatment includes an elective pelvic nodal CTV (4500 cGy in 25 fractions). Ten consecutively accrued patients were the subjects for dose-volume histogram comparison between IMPT and VMAT. Two treatment plans (IMPT and VMAT) were prepared for each patient with predefined planning objectives for target volumes and OARs. The IMPT plans were prepared with 2 lateral beams and VMAT plans with 2 arcs. Results: The CTV coverage was adequate for both plans with 99% of CTVs receiving ≥ 100% of the prescription doses. Mean doses to the bladder, rectum, large bowel, and small bowel were lower with IMPT versus VMAT. Mean femoral head dose was greater with IMPT. The percentage of volumes of rectum receiving ≤ 47.5 Gy, large bowel receiving ≤ 27.5 Gy, small bowel receiving ≤ 30 Gy, and bladder receiving ≤ 37.5 Gy was less with IMPT versus VMAT, largely because of reduction in the low-dose “bath” associated with VMAT. Conclusions: In the setting of prostate and elective, pelvic nodal radiotherapy for prostate cancer, IMPT can significantly reduce the dose to OARs, in comparison to VMAT, and provide adequate target coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Heather Schultz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Jethwa KR, Park SS, Gonuguntla K, Wick SM, Vallow LA, Deufel CL, Whitaker TJ, Furutani KM, Ruddy KJ, Corbin KS, Hieken TJ, Mutter RW. Three-Fraction Intracavitary Accelerated Partial Breast Brachytherapy: Early Provider and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Novel Regimen. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 104:75-82. [PMID: 30583041 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.12.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2018] [Revised: 12/10/2018] [Accepted: 12/13/2018] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report early adverse events and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of 3-fraction intracavitary catheter-based partial breast brachytherapy (ICBB). MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligible women ≥50 years of age with ≤2.5-cm, lymph node-negative invasive or in situ breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery and placement of a brachytherapy applicator. ICBB was initiated on the second weekday after surgery and prescribed to 21 Gy in 3 once-daily fractions. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0; 10-point linear analog scale assessment; the PRO version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; and the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale were used for provider and patient-reported assessments. RESULTS Seventy-three women were treated for invasive (79%) or in situ (21%) breast cancer. The median time to completion of surgery and radiation therapy was 6 days. After 14-months median follow-up, 2 patients (3%) had developed breast infections that resolved with oral antibiotics. There was no other treatment-associated adverse event grade ≥2. The grade 1 seroma rate at 3 months was 20%, which dropped to 8% at 12 months; no events required intervention. At 12 months, 91% of patients reported an overall quality of life score as ≥8 of 10, and patient-reported cosmesis was good or excellent in 95%. All patients are alive without relapse at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Three-fraction ICBB is associated with low rates of early provider and patient- reported adverse events and compares favorably with early outcomes of more protracted ICBB regimens, including twice-daily (3.4 Gy × 10) fractionation studied in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-39. Further investigation is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Stephanie M Wick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Laura A Vallow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | | | | | - Keith M Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Zhang Y, Mutter RW, Park SS, Hieken TJ, Yan ES, Corbin KS, Brinkmann DH, Pafundi DH. Carbon Fiducial Image Guidance Increases the Accuracy of Lumpectomy Cavity Localization in Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; 9:e14-e21. [PMID: 30287358 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2018] [Revised: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 09/24/2018] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We investigated the feasibility and accuracy of using carbon fiducials to localize the lumpectomy cavity with 2-dimensional kV imaging for early stage breast cancer radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Carbon fiducials were placed intraoperatively in the periphery of the lumpectomy cavity. Nine patients received whole breast irradiation with a boost, and 2 patients received 3-dimensional conformal partial breast irradiation. A total of 89 fractions were assessed for setup errors relative to a predefined gold standard, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) match to the lumpectomy cavity, using the following 4 setup methods: (1) Align skin tattoos with lasers; (2) match bone with 2-dimensional-2-dimensional (2D/2D) kV onboard imaging (OBI); (3) match the whole breast with CBCT; and (4) match carbon fiducials with 2D/2D kV OBI. The margin for the planning target volume (PTV) was calculated by 2 standard deviations of the setup errors, and compared among the 4 setup methods. Setup errors for patients treated with free breathing and patients with deep inspiration breath hold were also compared. RESULTS The carbon fiducials were sufficiently visible on OBI for matching and introduced minimal artifacts. Of the 4 alignment methods, 2D/2D OBI match to fiducials resulted in the smallest setup errors. The PTV margin was 12 mm for aligning skin tattoos using lasers, 9.2 mm for matching bone on OBI, 6.5 mm for matching breast on CBCT, and 3.5 mm for matching fiducials on 2D/2D OBI. Compared with free breathing, deep inspiration breath hold generally reduced the standard deviations of the setup errors, but further investigation would be needed. CONCLUSIONS Matching to carbon fiducials increased the localization accuracy to the lumpectomy cavity. This reduces residual setup error and PTV margins, facilitating tissue sparing without diminishing treatment efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Elizabeth S Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Deanna H Pafundi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Gao RW, Park SS, Jakub JW, Hieken TJ, Conners AL, Neal L, Pruthi S, Corbin KS, Yan ES, Mutter RW, Stish BJ. Durable response of early-stage breast cancer to bilateral definitive SBRT in a medically inoperable patient. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; 8:361-365. [PMID: 29699894 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2017] [Revised: 03/04/2018] [Accepted: 03/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Gao
- University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - James W Jakub
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Amy L Conners
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Lonzetta Neal
- Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sandhya Pruthi
- Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Elizabeth S Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Ravishankar A, Park SS, Olivier KR, Corbin KS. Gemcitabine-Induced Radiation Recall Myositis: Case Report and Review of the Literature. Case Rep Oncol 2018; 11:168-178. [PMID: 29681817 PMCID: PMC5903158 DOI: 10.1159/000487478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 02/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Gemcitabine-induced radiation recall (GIRR) is a phenomenon wherein the administration of gemcitabine induces an inflammatory reaction within an area of prior radiation. We present the case of a 39-year-old female patient with metastatic breast cancer who experienced GIRR myositis 3 months following postoperative radiotherapy, with additional potential paraspinal myositis following ablative radiotherapy to the thoracic spine. A review of previously published cases of GIRR myositis was performed. The case and literature review describe the clinical course and presentation of GIRR, and highlight the importance of including radiation recall as part of a differential diagnosis when a patient undergoing chemotherapy experiences an inflammatory reaction at a prior site of radiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sean S Park
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Kenneth R Olivier
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Whitaker TJ, Mayo CS, Ma DJ, Haddock MG, Miller RC, Corbin KS, Neben-Wittich M, Leenstra JL, Laack NN, Fatyga M, Schild SE, Vargas CE, Tzou KS, Hadley AR, Buskirk SJ, Foote RL. Data collection of patient outcomes: one institution's experience. J Radiat Res 2018. [PMID: 29538757 PMCID: PMC5868196 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rry013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2023]
Abstract
Patient- and provider-reported outcomes are recognized as important in evaluating quality of care, guiding health care policy, comparative effectiveness research, and decision-making in radiation oncology. Combining patient and provider outcome data with a detailed description of disease and therapy is the basis for these analyses. We report on the combination of technical solutions and clinical process changes at our institution that were used in the collection and dissemination of this data. This initiative has resulted in the collection of treatment data for 23 541 patients, 20 465 patients with provider-based adverse event records, and patient-reported outcome surveys submitted by 5622 patients. All of the data is made accessible using a self-service web-based tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas J Whitaker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
- Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. S.W., Rochester, MN, USA. Tel: +01-507-255-2129; Fax: +01-507-284-0079;
| | - Charles S Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Daniel J Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Michael G Haddock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Robert C Miller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - James L Leenstra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Nadia N Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Mirek Fatyga
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Steven E Schild
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Katherine S Tzou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Austin R Hadley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Steven J Buskirk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
As the number of patients cured from breast cancer increases with improvements in multidisciplinary care, emphasis on reducing late toxicities of treatment has increased, in order to improve long-term quality of life. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a form of radiotherapy that uses particles with unique physical properties that enable treatment delivery with minimal dose deposition beyond the treatment target. Therefore, PBT has emerged as an exciting radiotherapy modality for breast cancer due to the ability to minimize exposure to the heart, lungs, muscle, and bone. Herein, we review the rationale for PBT in breast cancer, potential clinical applications, and the available clinical data supporting its use. We also address some of the technical and logistical challenges and areas of ongoing research that will ultimately establish the role for PBT for breast cancer in the years ahead.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Mutter RW, Remmes NB, Kahila MMH, Hoeft KA, Pafundi DH, Zhang Y, Corbin KS, Park SS, Yan ES, Lemaine V, Boughey JC, Beltran CJ. Initial clinical experience of postmastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy in patients with breast expanders with metallic ports. Pract Radiat Oncol 2017; 7:e243-e252. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2016] [Revised: 12/07/2016] [Accepted: 12/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
47
|
Hieken TJ, Mutter RW, Jakub JW, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Sukov WR, Childs S, Corbin KS, Furutani KM, Whitaker TJ, Park SS. Erratum to: A Novel Treatment Schedule for Rapid Completion of Surgery and Radiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:1059. [PMID: 27439416 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5444-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - James W Jakub
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Amy C Degnim
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - William R Sukov
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Stephanie Childs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Keith M Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Hieken TJ, Mutter RW, Jakub JW, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Sukov WR, Childs S, Corbin KS, Furutani KM, Whitaker TJ, Park SS. A Novel Treatment Schedule for Rapid Completion of Surgery and Radiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:3297-303. [DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5321-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
49
|
Abstract
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal tumors arising in the gastrointestinal tract. Over the last decade, the management and prognosis of GISTs has changed dramatically with molecular characterization of the c-kit mutation and the adoption of targeted systemic therapy. Currently, the standard of care for resectable tumors is surgery, followed by adjuvant imatinib for tumors at high risk for recurrence. Inoperable or metastatic tumors are treated primarily with imatinib. Despite excellent initial response rates, resistance to targeted therapy has emerged as a common clinical problem, with relatively few therapeutic solutions. While the treatment of GISTs does not commonly include radiotherapy, radiation therapy could be a valuable contributing modality. Several case reports indicate that radiation can control locally progressive, drug-resistant disease. Further study is necessary to define whether radiation could potentially prevent or delay the onset of drug resistance, or improve outcomes when given in combination with imatinib.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Medical Center, Springfield, IL, USA
| | - Hedy L Kindler
- Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Stanley L Liauw
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Corbin KS, Kunnavakkam R, Eggener SE, Liauw SL. Intensity modulated radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: Early results show no decline in urinary continence, gastrointestinal, or sexual quality of life. Pract Radiat Oncol 2013; 3:138-44. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2012.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2012] [Revised: 05/16/2012] [Accepted: 05/17/2012] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|