Purpose
The aim of this review was to analyze the respective efficacy of various heart-sparing radiotherapy techniques.
Material and methods
Heart-sparing can be performed in three different ways in ...breast cancer radiotherapy: by seeking to keep the heart out of treated volumes (i.e. by prone position or specific breathing techniques such as deep inspiration breath-hold DIBH and/or gating), by solely irradiating a small volume around the lumpectomy cavity (partial breast irradiation, PBI), or by using modern radiation techniques like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or protons. This overview presents the available data on these three approaches.
Results
Studies on prone position are heterogeneous and most trials only refer to patients with large breasts; therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn for clinical routine. Nonetheless, there seems to be a trend toward better sparing of the left anterior descending artery in supine position even for these selected patients. The data on the use of DIBH for heart-sparing in breast cancer patients is consistent and the benefit compared to free-breathing is supported by several studies. In comparison with whole breast irradiation (WBI), PBI has an advantage in reducing the heart dose. Of note, DIBH and PBI with multicatheter brachytherapy are similar with regard to the dose reduction to heart structures. WBI by IMRT/VMAT techniques without DIBH is not an effective strategy for heart-sparing in breast cancer patients with “standard” anatomy. A combination of DIBH and IMRT may be used for internal mammary radiotherapy.
Conclusion
Based on the available findings, the DEGRO breast cancer expert panel recommends the use of DIBH as the best heart-sparing technique. Nonetheless, depending on the treatment volume and localization, other techniques may be employed or combined with DIBH when appropriate.
Moderate hypofractionation is the standard of care for adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Recently, 10-year results from the FAST and 5‑year results ...from the FAST-Forward trial evaluating adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 5 weeks or 1 week have been published. This article summarizes recent data for moderate hypofractionation and results from the FAST and FAST-Forward trial on ultra-hypofractionation. While the FAST trial was not powered for comparison of local recurrence rates, FAST-Forward demonstrated non-inferiority for two ultra-hypofractionated regimens in terms of local control. In both trials, the higher-dose experimental arms resulted in elevated rates of late toxicity. For the lower dose experimental arms of 28.5 Gy over 5 weeks and 26 Gy over 1 week, moderate or marked late effects were similar in the majority of documented items compared to the respective standard arms, but significantly worse in some subdomains. The difference between the standard arm and the 26 Gy of the FAST-Forward trial concerning moderate or marked late effects increased with longer follow-up in disadvantage of the experimental arm for most items. For now, moderate hypofractionation with 40–42.5 Gy over 15–16 fractions remains the standard of care for the majority of patients with breast cancer who undergo whole-breast radiotherapy without regional nodal irradiation after breast-conserving surgery.
Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Two randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) compared ...with a wait-and-see policy. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare RP followed by immediate RT with RP alone for patients with pT3 prostate cancer and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after RP.
After RP, 192 men were randomly assigned to a wait-and-see policy, and 193 men were assigned to immediate postoperative RT. Eligible patients had pT3 pN0 tumors. Patients who did not achieve an undetectable PSA after RP were excluded from treatment according to random assignment (n = 78; 20%). Of the remaining 307 patients, 34 patients on the RT arm did not receive RT and five patients on the wait-and-see arm received RT. Therefore, 114 patients underwent RT and 154 patients were treated with a wait-and-see policy. The primary end point was biochemical progression-free survival.
Biochemical progression-free survival after 5 years in patients with undetectable PSA after RP was significantly improved in the RT group (72%; 95% CI, 65% to 81%; v 54%, 95% CI, 45% to 63%; hazard ratio = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = .0015). On univariate analysis, Gleason score more than 6 and less than 7, PSA before RP, tumor stage, and positive surgical margins were predictors of outcome. The rate of grade 3 to 4 late adverse effects was 0.3%.
Adjuvant RT for pT3 prostate cancer with postoperatively undetectable PSA significantly reduces the risk of biochemical progression. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on metastases-free and overall survival.
Neoadjuvant (primary systemic) treatment is the standard treatment for locally advanced breast cancer and a standard option for primary operable disease. Because of new treatments and new ...understandings of breast cancer, however, recommendations published in 2003 regarding neoadjuvant treatment for operable disease required updating. Therefore, a second international panel of representatives of a number of breast cancer clinical research groups was convened in September 2004 to update these recommendations. As part of this effort, data published to date were reviewed critically and indications for neoadjuvant treatment were newly defined.
PDF
