Intraoperative radiation therapy for breast cancer patients: current perspectives

Sunil W Dutta,1 Shayna L Showalter,2 Timothy N Showalter,1 Bruce Libby,1 Daniel M Trifiletti1 1Department of Radiation Oncology, 2Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA Abstract: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) provides an attractive alternative to whole breast irradiation (WBI) through normal tissue radiation exposure and reduced treatment duration. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is a form of APBI with the shortest time interval, as it delivers the entirety of a planned radiation course at the time of breast surgery. However, faster is not always better, and IORT has been met with healthy skepticism. Patients treated with IORT have an increased compliance and overall satisfaction when compared to patients treated with WBI. However, early randomized trial results demonstrated an increased rate of recurrence after IORT, slowing its widespread adoption. Despite these controversies, IORT utilization is increasing nationally and several novel developments are aimed at continuing to minimize the risk of recurrence and treatment-related toxicity while maximizing the patient experience. Keywords: IORT, lumpectomy, breast conservation, electron, photon, evidenc

Accelerated partial breast irradiation with brachytherapy: patient selection and technique considerations

Daniel M Trifiletti,1 Kara D Romano,1 Shayna L Showalter,2 Kelli A Reardon,1 Bruce Libby,1 Timothy N Showalter11Department of Radiation Oncology, 2Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USAAbstract: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) through breast brachytherapy is a relatively recent development in breast radiotherapy that has gained international favor because of its reduction in treatment duration and normal tissue irradiation while maintaining favorable cancer-specific and cosmetic outcomes. Despite the fact that several large national trials have not reported final results yet, many providers are currently offering APBI to select patients and APBI is listed as a treatment option for selecting patients in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Multiple consensus guidelines exist in selecting patients for APBI, some with conflicting recommendations. In this review, the existing patient selection guidelines are reported, compared, and critiqued, grouping them in helpful subcategories. Unique patient and technical selection factors for APBI with brachytherapy are explored.Keywords: breast cancer, APBI, breast brachytherap

Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck cancer: prospective multi-institutional patient-reported toxicity

M Sean Peach,1 Daniel M Trifiletti,2 Carolyn Vachani,3 Karen Arnold-Korzeniowski,3 Christina Bach,3 Margaret Hampshire,3 James M Metz,3 Christine E Hill-Kayser3 1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Purpose: Head and neck cancer is occurring in an increasingly younger patient population, with treatment toxicity that can cause significant morbidity. Using a patient guided, Internet-based survivorship care plan program, we obtained and looked at patterns of patient-reported outcomes data from survivors seeking information after treatment for head and neck cancer. Methods: The Internet-based OncoLife and LIVESTRONG Care Plan programs were employed, which design unique survivorship care plans based on patient-reported data. Care plans created for survivors of head and neck cancer were used in this evaluation. Demographics, treatment modality, and toxicity were included in this evaluation. Toxicity was further analyzed, grouped into system-based subsets. Results: A total of 602 care plans were created from self-identified head and neck cancer survivors, from which patient-reported outcome data were attained. A majority of patients were Caucasian (96.2%) with median age at diagnosis of 55 years, living in suburban locations (39.9%), with ~50% receiving care within 20 miles of their residence. There was an equal distribution of education levels from high school only to graduate school. The majority of patients received care through cancer centers (96.7%), with a split between academic and non-academic centers. Ninety-three percent of patients had radiation therapy as part of their treatment modality, with 70.3% having chemotherapy and 60.1% having surgery. The most common system toxicities affected the oropharynx, followed by epithelium (skin/hair/nail), and then general global health. Specifically, the most common side effects were difficulty swallowing (61.5%) and changes in skin color/texture (49.7%). One third of patients experienced hearing/tinnitus/vertigo, xerostomia, loss of tissue flexibility, or fatigue. Conclusion: The current work demonstrates the ability to obtain patient-reported outcomes of head and neck cancer survivors through an Internet-based survivorship care plan program. For this group dysphagia and dermatitis were the most commonly reported toxicities, as was expected; however, global effects of therapy, such as fatigue, were also significant and should be addressed in future survivorship planning. Keywords: head and neck radiation, surgery, chemotherapy, patient reported outcomes, survivorship care plan, Internet, patient-reported outcome