With earlier detection and more effective treatment, mortality from breast cancer continues to fall and it has become increasingly important to reduce the toxicity of treatments. Partial-breast ...radiation therapy, which focuses radiation to the tumor bed, may achieve this aim. We analyzed mortality differences in randomized trials of partial-breast irradiation (PBI).
We included data from published randomized trials of PBI (alone or as part of a risk-adapted approach) versus whole-breast irradiation (WBI) for invasive breast cancer suitable for breast-conserving therapy. We identified trials using PubMed and Google searches with the terms “partial breast irradiation” OR “intraoperative radiotherapy” OR “IMRT” OR (“accelerated” AND “radiation”) AND “randomised/randomized,” as well as through discussion with colleagues in the field. We calculated the proportion of patients who had events in each randomized arm at 5 years' follow-up and created a forest plot using Stata, version 14.1.
We identified 9 randomized trials of PBI versus WBI in invasive breast cancer; 5-year outcomes were available for non–breast cancer mortality in 5 trials (n=4489) and for breast cancer mortality in 4 trials (n=4231). The overall mortality was 4.9%. There was no detectable heterogeneity between the trials for any of the outcomes. There was no difference in the proportion of patients dying of breast cancer (difference, 0.000% 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.7 to +0.7; P=.999). Non–breast cancer mortality with PBI was lower than with WBI (difference, 1.1% 95% CI, −2.1% to −0.2%; P=.023). Total mortality with PBI was also lower than with WBI (difference, 1.3% 95% CI, −2.5% to 0.0%; P=.05).
Use of PBI instead of WBI in selected patients results in a lower 5-year non–breast cancer and overall mortality, amounting to a 25% reduction in relative terms. This information should be included when breast-conserving therapy is proposed to a patient.
Summary Background After breast-conserving surgery, 90% of local recurrences occur within the index quadrant despite the presence of multicentric cancers elsewhere in the breast. Thus, restriction of ...radiation therapy to the tumour bed during surgery might be adequate for selected patients. We compared targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with the conventional policy of whole breast external beam radiotherapy. Methods Having safely piloted the new technique of single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with Intrabeam, we launched the TARGIT-A trial on March 24, 2000. In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma undergoing breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from 28 centres in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy or whole breast external beam radiotherapy, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy. Neither patients nor investigators or their teams were masked to treatment assignment. Postoperative discovery of predefined factors (eg, lobular carcinoma) could trigger addition of external beam radiotherapy to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (in an expected 15% of patients). The primary outcome was local recurrence in the conserved breast. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 2·5% in the primary endpoint. All randomised patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00983684. Findings 1113 patients were randomly allocated to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 1119 were allocated to external beam radiotherapy. Of 996 patients who received the allocated treatment in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group, 854 (86%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy only and 142 (14%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy plus external beam radiotherapy. 1025 (92%) patients in the external beam radiotherapy group received the allocated treatment. At 4 years, there were six local recurrences in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and five in the external beam radiotherapy group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence in the conserved breast at 4 years was 1·20% (95% CI 0·53–2·71) in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 0·95% (0·39–2·31) in the external beam radiotherapy group (difference between groups 0·25%, −1·04 to 1·54; p=0·41). The frequency of any complications and major toxicity was similar in the two groups (for major toxicity, targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, 37 3·3% of 1113 vs external beam radiotherapy, 44 3·9% of 1119; p=0·44). Radiotherapy toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3) was lower in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group (six patients 0·5%) than in the external beam radiotherapy group (23 patients 2·1%; p=0·002). Interpretation For selected patients with early breast cancer, a single dose of radiotherapy delivered at the time of surgery by use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy should be considered as an alternative to external beam radiotherapy delivered over several weeks. Funding University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
In Regard to Hepel and Wazer Vaidya, Jayant S; Bulsara, Max; Wenz, Frederik ...
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics,
08/2015, Letnik:
92, Številka:
5
Journal Article
To report the first comprehensive investigation of patient-reported cosmesis and breast-related quality of life (QOL) outcomes comparing patients randomized to risk-adapted single-dose intraoperative ...radiation therapy (TARGIT-IORT) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on the TARGIT-A trial.
Longitudinal cosmesis and QOL data were collected from a subset of TARGIT-A participants who received TARGIT-IORT as a separate procedure (postpathology). Patients completed a cosmetic assessment before radiation therapy and annually thereafter for at least 5 years. Patients also completed the combined European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire and Breast-Specific Module in addition to the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire at baseline and annually thereafter. The combined EORTC questionnaires were also collected 3, 6, and 9 months after wide local excision.
An Excellent–Good cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair–Poor result for both treatment groups across all time points. The TARGIT-IORT patients reported better breast-related QOL than EBRT patients. Statistically and clinically significant differences were seen at month 6 and year 1, with EBRT patients having moderately worse breast symptoms (a statistically significant difference of more than 10 in a 100-point scale) than TARGIT-IORT patients at these time points.
Patients treated with TARGIT-IORT on the TARGIT-A trial have similar self-reported cosmetic outcome but better breast-related QOL outcomes than patients treated with EBRT. This important evidence can facilitate the treatment decision-making process for patients who have early breast cancer suitable for breast-conserving surgery and inform their clinicians.
Summary Background The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for ...breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. Methods TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00983684. Findings Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% 239 of 1571 of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12–52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1–5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7–2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1–4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5–2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% 3·0–9·7 vs EBRT 1·7% 0·6–4·9; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% 1·5–4·3 for TARGIT vs 1·9% 1·1–3·2 for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% 0·8–2·5 vs 3·5% 2·3–5·2; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7–5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9–7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). Interpretation TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. Funding University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
PDF
