Accelerated partial breast irradiation using 3D conformal radiotherapy: Toxicity and cosmetic outcome

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to analyze the incidence of acute and late toxicity and cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients submitted to breast conserving surgery and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) to deliver accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Methods and materials: 84 patients were treated with 3D-CRT for APBI. This technique was assessed in patients with low risk stage I breast cancer enrolled from September 2005 to July 2011. The prescribed dose was 34/38.5 Gy delivered in 10 fractions twice daily over 5 consecutive days. Four to five nocoplanar 6 MV beams were used. In all CT scans Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) was defined around the surgical clips. A 1.5 cm margin was added by defining a Clinical Target Volume (CTV). A margin of 1 cm was added to CTV to define the planning target volume (PTV). The doseevolume constraints were followed in accordance with the NSABP/RTOG protocol. Late toxicity was evaluated according to the RTOG grading schema. The cosmetic assessment was performed using the Harvard scale. Results: Median patient age was 66 years (range 51e87). Median follow-up was 36.5 months (range 13 e83). The overall incidence of acute skin toxicities was 46.4% for grade 1 and 1% for grade 2. The incidence of late toxicity was 16.7% for grade 1, 2.4% for grade 2 and 3.6% for grade 3. No grade 4 toxicity was observed. The most pronounced grade 2 late toxicity was telangiectasia, developed in three patients. Cosmetics results were excellent for 52%, good for 42%, fair for 5% and poor for 1% of the patients. There was no statistical correlation between toxicity rates and prescribed doses (p ¼ 0.33) or irradiated volume (p ¼ 0.45). Conclusions: APBI using 3D-CRT is technically feasible with very low acute and late toxicity. Long-term results are needed to assess its efficacy in reducing the incidence of breast relapse

Validation of Androgen Receptor loss as a risk factor for the development of brain metastases from ovarian cancers

Abstract Background Central nervous system (CNS) spreading from epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) is an uncommon but increasing phenomenon. We previously reported in a small series of 11 patients a correlation between Androgen Receptor (AR) loss and localization to CNS. Aims of this study were: to confirm a predictive role of AR loss in an independent validation cohort; to evaluate if AR status impacts on EOC survival. Results We collected an additional 29 cases and 19 controls as validation cohort. In this independent cohort at univariate analysis, cases exhibited lower expression of AR, considered both as continuous (p <  0.001) and as discrete variable (10% cut-off: p <  0.003; Immunoreactive score: p <  0.001). AR negative EOC showed an odds ratio (OR) = 8.33 for CNS dissemination compared with AR positive EOC. Kaplan-Meier curves of the combined dataset, combining data of new validation cohort with the previously published cohort, showed that AR <  10% significantly correlates with worse outcomes (p = 0.005 for Progression Free Survival (PFS) and p = 0.002 for brain PFS (bPFS) respectively). Comparison of AR expression between primary tissue and paired brain metastases in the combined dataset did not show any statistically significant difference. Conclusions We confirmed AR loss as predictive role for CNS involvement from EOC in an independent cohort of cases and controls. Early assessment of AR status could improve clinical management and patients’ prognosis

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences