Reconstructive complications and early toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with proton-based postmastectomy radiation therapy

BackgroundPostmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and increases overall survival rates in patients with high-risk node positive breast cancer. While the number of breast cancer patients treated with proton-based PMRT has increased in recent years, there is limited data on the use of proton therapy in the postmastectomy with reconstruction setting. In this study, we compared acute toxicities and reconstructive complications in patients treated with proton-based and photon-based PMRT.MethodsA retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy with implant or autologous reconstruction followed by PMRT from 2015 to 2020. Baseline clinical, disease, and treatment related factors were compared between the photon-based and proton-based PMRT groups. Early toxicity outcomes and reconstructive complications following PMRT were graded by the treating physician.ResultsA total of 11 patients treated with proton-based PMRT and 26 patients treated with photon-based PMRT were included with a median follow-up of 7.4 months (range, 0.7-33 months). Six patients (55%) in the proton group had a history of breast cancer (3 ipsilateral and 3 contralateral) and received previous RT 38 months ago (median, range 7-85). There was no significant difference in mean PMRT (p = 0.064) and boost dose (p = 0.608) between the two groups. Grade 2 skin toxicity was the most common acute toxicity in both groups (55% and 73% in the proton and photon group, respectively) (p = 0.077). Three patients (27%) in the proton group developed grade 3 skin toxicity. No Grade 4 acute toxicity was reported in either group. Reconstructive complications occurred in 4 patients (36%) in the proton group and 8 patients (31%) in photon group (p = 0.946).ConclusionsAcute skin toxicity remains the most frequent adverse event in both proton- and photon-based PMRT. In our study, reconstructive complications were not significantly higher in patients treated with proton- versus photon-based PMRT. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess late toxicities

Incidence of clinical lymphedema in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant proton-based radiotherapy

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of clinical lymphedema following adjuvant proton-based radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify BC patients treated with adjuvant proton-based RT. Patients receiving re-irradiation for a BC recurrence or those with a history of ipsilateral chest wall radiation were excluded. Clinical lymphedema was determined by documentation in the chart at baseline and during follow-up. Results: We identified 28 patients treated with adjuvant proton-based RT who met the study criteria. Median age at diagnosis was 45 (range, 24–75). Eleven patients (39%) underwent mastectomy, and fourteen (50%) underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Median number of LNs removed was 6 (range, 1–28). Nineteen patients (68%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median whole breast/chest wall dose delivered was 50 Gy (range, 44–54.0 Gy). Target volumes included the axillary and supraclavicular lymph nodes in all patients and internal mammary lymph nodes in 27 (96%) patients. Mean dose to the axilla was 49.7 Gy, and mean dose to 95% of the axillary volume (D95) was 46.3 Gy (94% of prescription dose). Mean dose to supraclavicular (SCV) volume was 47.7 Gy, and D95 was 44.1 Gy (91% of prescription dose). Grade 3 dermatitis occurred in 14% of patients. Five patients (18%) had clinical lymphedema, 4 from the ALND subset (n = 14). Conclusions: The incidence of clinical lymphedema after proton-based RT is comparable to rates reported with photon-based RT with comprehensive nodal coverage

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

Objective:To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background:AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods:This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results:This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions:The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.The aim of this study was to inform vaccination prioritization by modelling the impact of vaccination on elective inpatient surgery. The study found that patients aged at least 70 years needing elective surgery should be prioritized alongside other high-risk groups during early vaccination programmes. Once vaccines are rolled out to younger populations, prioritizing surgical patients is advantageous