Comparison of intraoperative radiotherapy as a boost vs. simultaneously integrated boosts after breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer.
SIB
adjuvant
breast cancer
intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT)
radiotherapy
toxicity
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
23
04
2023
accepted:
30
05
2023
medline:
6
7
2023
pubmed:
6
7
2023
entrez:
6
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Currently, there are no data from randomized trials on the use of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as a tumor bed boost in women at high risk of local recurrence. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to compare the toxicity and oncological outcome of IORT or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) with conventional external beam radiotherapy (WBI) after breast conserving surgery (BCS). Between 2009 and 2019, patients were treated with a single dose of 20 Gy IORT with 50 kV photons, followed by WBI 50 Gy in 25 or 40.05 in 15 fractions or WBI 50 Gy with SIB up to 58.80-61.60 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Toxicity was compared after propensity score matching. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A 1:1 propensity-score matching resulted in an IORT + WBI and SIB + WBI cohort of 60 patients, respectively. The median follow-up for IORT + WBI was 43.5 vs. 32 months in the SIB + WBI cohort. Most women had a pT1c tumor: IORT group 33 (55%) vs. 31 (51.7%) SIB group (p = 0.972). The luminal-B immunophenotype was most frequently diagnosed in the IORT group 43 (71.6%) vs. 35 (58.3%) in the SIB group (p = 0.283). The most reported acute adverse event in both groups was radiodermatitis. In the IORT cohort, radiodermatitis was grade 1: 23 (38.3%), grade 2: 26 (43.3%), and grade 3: 6 (10%) vs. SIB cohort grade 1: 3 (5.1%), grade 2: 21 (35%), and grade 3: 7 (11.6%) without a meaningful difference (p = 0.309). Fatigue occurred more frequently in the IORT group (grade 1: 21.7% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.041). In addition, intramammary lymphedema grade 1 occurred significantly more often in the IORT group (11.7% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.026). Both groups showed comparable late toxicity. The 3- and 5-year local control (LC) rates were each 98% in the SIB group vs. 98% and 93% in the IORT group (LS: log rank p = 0.717). Tumor bed boost using IORT and SIB techniques after BCS shows excellent local control and comparable late toxicity, while IORT application exhibits a moderate increase in acute toxicity. These data should be validated by the expected publication of the prospective randomized TARGIT-B study.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Currently, there are no data from randomized trials on the use of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as a tumor bed boost in women at high risk of local recurrence. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to compare the toxicity and oncological outcome of IORT or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) with conventional external beam radiotherapy (WBI) after breast conserving surgery (BCS).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Between 2009 and 2019, patients were treated with a single dose of 20 Gy IORT with 50 kV photons, followed by WBI 50 Gy in 25 or 40.05 in 15 fractions or WBI 50 Gy with SIB up to 58.80-61.60 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Toxicity was compared after propensity score matching. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A 1:1 propensity-score matching resulted in an IORT + WBI and SIB + WBI cohort of 60 patients, respectively. The median follow-up for IORT + WBI was 43.5 vs. 32 months in the SIB + WBI cohort. Most women had a pT1c tumor: IORT group 33 (55%) vs. 31 (51.7%) SIB group (p = 0.972). The luminal-B immunophenotype was most frequently diagnosed in the IORT group 43 (71.6%) vs. 35 (58.3%) in the SIB group (p = 0.283). The most reported acute adverse event in both groups was radiodermatitis. In the IORT cohort, radiodermatitis was grade 1: 23 (38.3%), grade 2: 26 (43.3%), and grade 3: 6 (10%) vs. SIB cohort grade 1: 3 (5.1%), grade 2: 21 (35%), and grade 3: 7 (11.6%) without a meaningful difference (p = 0.309). Fatigue occurred more frequently in the IORT group (grade 1: 21.7% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.041). In addition, intramammary lymphedema grade 1 occurred significantly more often in the IORT group (11.7% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.026). Both groups showed comparable late toxicity. The 3- and 5-year local control (LC) rates were each 98% in the SIB group vs. 98% and 93% in the IORT group (LS: log rank p = 0.717).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Tumor bed boost using IORT and SIB techniques after BCS shows excellent local control and comparable late toxicity, while IORT application exhibits a moderate increase in acute toxicity. These data should be validated by the expected publication of the prospective randomized TARGIT-B study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37409247
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1210879
pmc: PMC10318399
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1210879Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Stoian, Exner, Gainey, Erbes, Gkika, Popp, Spohn, Krug, Juhasz-Böss, Grosu and Sprave.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
DK has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dome, Onkowissen, and Pfizer as well as research funding from Merck KGaA outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Oct;163:1-6
pubmed: 34329655
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Mar 1;14(5):1325-32
pubmed: 18316551
Radiother Oncol. 1987 Aug;9(4):299-310
pubmed: 3317524
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Aug;100(2):282-8
pubmed: 21367477
Radiat Oncol. 2011 Dec 16;6:174
pubmed: 22176703
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Dec;97(3):530-4
pubmed: 20934763
Radiother Oncol. 2020 May;146:136-142
pubmed: 32151790
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Aug;149:150-157
pubmed: 32413529
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985 Jan;11(1):87-96
pubmed: 3881377
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Sep;197(9):812-819
pubmed: 33938966
Strahlenther Onkol. 2013 Sep;189(9):729-37
pubmed: 23842635
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;35(6):578-82
pubmed: 18938055
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Dec;177:71-80
pubmed: 36377094
Breast. 2008 Dec;17(6):617-22
pubmed: 18650091
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020 Sep-Oct;25(5):775-779
pubmed: 32904392
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Aug;149:212-218
pubmed: 32464163
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jan;154:179-186
pubmed: 32980384
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Sep;128(3):434-441
pubmed: 29980320
Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1707-16
pubmed: 22019144
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Oct;163:165-176
pubmed: 34480960
Clin Breast Cancer. 2020 Dec;20(6):527-533
pubmed: 32665192
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 May;17(5):1375-91
pubmed: 20140531
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2021 Jan;33(1):30-39
pubmed: 32711920
Strahlenther Onkol. 2023 Jan;199(1):90-101
pubmed: 35943553
Strahlenther Onkol. 2020 Apr;196(4):349-355
pubmed: 31641788
N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1378-87
pubmed: 11794170
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Apr 1;109(5):1311-1324
pubmed: 33321192
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008 Oct;18(4):257-64
pubmed: 18725113
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Nov;164:50-56
pubmed: 34537289
Oncogene. 2016 Sep 15;35(37):4914-26
pubmed: 26876200
Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Apr 13;23(1):46
pubmed: 33849606
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Oct 13;15(1):235
pubmed: 33050920
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Sep 1;63(1):209-13
pubmed: 16111591
BMJ. 2020 Aug 19;370:m2836
pubmed: 32816842
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):47-56
pubmed: 25500422