The role of irradiation in the management of the axilla in early breast cancer patients

The need for axillary radiotherapy in patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC) has been a topic of great debate in the last decade. Management of the axilla has evolved significantly over the past four decades with a trend towards de-escalation of surgical interventions and the aim of reducing morbidity and enhancing QOL without compromising long-term oncology outcomes. This review article will address the role of axillary irradiation with a focus on the omission of completion axillary lymph node dissection in selected patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive early breast cancer (EBC) with reference to current guidelines based on evidence to date

The Cambridge post-mastectomy radiotherapy (C-PMRT) index : a practical tool for patient selection

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Post mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) reduces loco-regional recurrence (LRR) and has been associated with survival benefit. It is recommended for patients with T3/T4 tumours and/or ⩾ 4 positive lymph nodes (LN). The role of PMRT in 1-3 positive LN and LN negative patients is contentious. The C-PMRT index has been designed for selecting PMRT patients, using independent prognostic factors for LRR. This study reports a 10 year experience using this index. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The C-PMRT index was constructed using the following prognostic factors (a) number of positive LN/lymphovascular invasion, (b) tumour size (c) margin status and (d) tumour grade. Patients were categorised as high (H) risk, intermediate (I) risk and low (L) risk. PMRT was recommended for H and I risk patients. The LRR, distant metastasis and overall survival (OS) rates were measured from the day of mastectomy. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2009, 898 invasive breast cancers in 883 patients were treated by mastectomy (H: 323, I: 231 and L: 344). At a median follow up of 5.2 years, 4.7% (42/898) developed LRR. The 5-year actuarial LRR rates were 6%, 2% and 2% for the H, I and L risk groups, respectively. 1.6% (14/898) developed isolated LRR (H risk n = 4, I risk group n = 0 and L risk n = 10). The 5-year actuarial overall survival rates were 67%, 77% and 90% for H, I and L risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on published literature, one would have expected a higher LRR rate in the I risk group without adjuvant RT. We hypothesise that the I risk group LRR rates have been reduced to that of the L risk group by the addition of RT. Apart from LN status and tumour size, other prognostic factors should also be considered in selecting patients for PMRT. This pragmatic tool requires further validation

Can patient decision aids reduce decisional conflict in a de-escalation of breast radiotherapy clinical trial? The PRIMETIME Study Within a Trial implemented using a cluster stepped-wedge trial design.

BackgroundFor patients with early breast cancer considered at very-low risk of local relapse, risks of radiotherapy may outweigh the benefits. Decisions regarding treatment omission can lead to patient uncertainty (decisional conflict), which may be lessened with patient decision aids (PDA). PRIMETIME (ISRCTN 41579286) is a UK-led biomarker-directed study evaluating omission of adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer; an embedded Study Within A Trial (SWAT) investigated whether PDA reduces decisional conflict using a cluster stepped-wedge trial design.MethodsPDA diagrams and a video explaining risks and benefits of radiotherapy were developed in close collaboration between patient advocates and PRIMETIME trialists. The SWAT used a cluster stepped-wedge trial design, where each cluster represented the radiotherapy centre and referring peripheral centres. All clusters began in the standard information group (patient information and diagrams) and were randomised to cross-over to the enhanced information group (standard information plus video) at 2, 4 or 6 months. Primary endpoint was the decisional conflict scale (0-100, higher scores indicating greater conflict) which was assessed on an individual participant level. Multilevel mixed effects models used a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect for each step to adjust for calendar time and clustering. Robust standard errors were also adjusted for the clustering effect.ResultsFive hundred twenty-one evaluable questionnaires were returned from 809 eligible patients (64%) in 24 clusters between April 2018 and October 2019. Mean decisional conflict scores in the standard group (N = 184) were 10.88 (SD 11.82) and 8.99 (SD 11.82) in the enhanced group (N = 337), with no statistically significant difference [mean difference - 1.78, 95%CI - 3.82-0.25, p = 0.09]. Compliance with patient information and diagrams was high in both groups although in the enhanced group only 121/337 (36%) reported watching the video.ConclusionThe low levels of decisional conflict in PRIMETIME are reassuring and may reflect the high-quality information provision, such that not everyone required the video. This reinforces the importance of working with patients as partners in clinical trials especially in the development of patient-centred information and decision aids

A multicentre study of the evidence for customized margins in photon breast boost radiotherapy

Objective:To determine if subsets of patients may benefit from smaller or larger margins when using laser setup and bony anatomy verification of breast tumour bed (TB) boost radiotherapy (RT).Methods: Verification imaging data acquired using cone-beam CT, megavoltage CT or two-dimensional kilovoltage imaging on 218 patients were used (1574 images). TB setup errors for laser-only setup (dlaser) and for bony anatomy verification (dbone) were determined using clips implanted into the TB as a gold standard for the TB position. Cases were grouped by centre-, patient- and treatment-related factors, including breast volume, TB position, seroma visibility and surgical technique. Systematic (?) and random (?) TB setup errors were compared between groups, and TB planning target volume margins (MTB) were calculated.Results: For the study population, ?laser was between 2.8 and 3.4?mm, and ?bone was between 2.2 and 2.6?mm, respectively. Females with larger breasts (p?=?0.03), easily visible seroma (p???0.02) and open surgical technique (p???0.04) had larger ?laser. ?bone was larger for females with larger breasts (p?=?0.02) and lateral tumours (p?=?0.04). Females with medial tumours (p?<?0.01) had smaller ?bone.Conclusion:If clips are not used, margins should be 8 and 10?mm for bony anatomy verification and laser setup, respectively. Individualization of TB margins may be considered based on breast volume, TB and seroma visibility.Advances in knowledge:Setup accuracy using lasers and bony anatomy is influenced by patient and treatment factors. Some patients may benefit from clip-based image guidance more than others

Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial. METHODS: FAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3, pN0-1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were -0·3% (-1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and -0·7% (-1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1-5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy. INTERPRETATION: 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

The requirements of a specialist breast centre

Abstract This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.Peer reviewe

Current practice and surgical outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer : UK NeST study

Funding Information: This work was funded by a grant from the Association of Breast SurgeryPeer reviewedPublisher PD