Quality assurance program and early toxicities in the phase III BONBIS randomized trial evaluating the role of a localized radiation boost in ductal carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: To describe the quality assurance (QA) program and early toxicities in the phase III randomized trial BONBIS (NCT00907868) on the role of a localized radiation boost in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2008 to July 2014, 2004 patients were randomized in arm A (only whole breast radiotherapy, WBRT) and arm B (WBRT + boost). The QA program involved 44 participant centers that performed the dummy run (DR). Compliance and uniformity of clinical target volume (CTV) delineations, and dose prescription and delivery according to the BONBIS trial radiotherapy guidelines were analyzed. Acute toxicities (during and up to 3 months after radiotherapy completion, NCI-CTCAE v3.0 classification) were evaluated in 1929 patients. RESULTS: The differences in whole breast CTV (CTV1) and planning target volume (PTV1) were ≤10%, and the differences in boost CTV (CTV2) and PTV (PTV2) were ≥20% compared with the reference DR values; 95% of the prescribed dose encompassed 98.7% and 100% of the median CTV1 and CTV2. Grade ≥2 breast erythema (38.3% vs. 22.4% of grade 2 and 5.4% vs. 2.1% of grade 3, p < 0.001), grade ≥2 dermatitis (2.8% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001), and grade 2 hyperpigmentation (6.9% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.005) were more frequent in arm B than arm A. No acute lung or cardiac toxicity was observed. Smoking history, large breast size, and large breast CTV were strong predictive factors of grade ≥2 acute skin toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The QA program showed deviations in breast and tumor bed delineation. The boost significantly increased acute skin toxicities.

Predictive factors of 5-year relapse-free survival in HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: pooled analysis of two phase 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on survival and predictive factors in early breast cancer (BC) patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET). METHODS: This is a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised non-comparative phase 2 clinical trials evaluating neoadjuvant anastrozole and fulvestrant efficacy for postmenopausal HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients: HORGEN (NCT00871858) and CARMINA02 (NCT00629616) studies. RESULTS: In total, 236 patients were included in CARMINA02 and HORGEN trials. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was available for 217 patients. Median follow-up was 65.2 months. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 83.7% (95% CI: 77.9-88) and 92.7% (95% CI: 88.2-95.6), respectively, with no difference between treatment arms. On univariate analysis, tumour staging (T2 vs T3-4; p = 0.0001), Ki-67 at surgery (≤10% vs >10%; p = 0.0093), pathological tumour size (pT1-2 vs pT3-4; p = 0.0012) and node status (pN negative vs positive; p = 0.007), adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.0167) and PEPI score (PEPI group I + II vs III; p = 0.0004) were associated with RFS. No events were observed in patients with pathological response according to the Sataloff classification. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative endocrine prognostic index (PEPI) group III was associated with significantly worse RFS (p = 0.0069, hazard ratio = 3.33 (95% CI: 1.39-7.98)). CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients receiving NET generally have a favourable outcome. The PEPI score identifies a subset of patients of poorer prognosis who are candidates for further additional treatment.

Factors predictive of locoregional recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with large operable or locally advanced breast cancer: An analysis of the EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 study.

PURPOSE: Identification of clinicopathological factors predicting for a locoregional recurrence (LRR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) could help to decide on the optimal locoregional radiotherapy. The objective of this trial is to identify those factors in the context of a phase III trial (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10994). METHODS: Patients received NAC followed by surgery with or without radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was administered according to pre-specified guidelines. Patients with hormone receptor positive tumours received adjuvant hormonal therapy. A proportion of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive cancer received adjuvant trastuzumab. The predictive factors for LRR were identified by multivariate analysis with time to LRR as first event as the primary end-point. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 4.4 years. In 1553 eligible patients, there were 76 LRRs with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 4.9% (95% confidence interval, CI [3.76-6.04]). In multivariate analysis, breast cancer subtype was a significant predictor of LRR (p < 0.0001): hazard ratio (HR) 6.44 (95% CI [2.83-14.69]) for triple negative, 6.26 (95% CI [2.81-13.93]) for HER2+ without trastuzumab (T) and 3.37 (95% CI [1.10-10.34]) for HER2+ with T cancers, all compared to luminal A patients. Lack of pathological response was also associated with significantly higher LRR risk in case of ≥4 pathologically positive nodes, HR 2.43 (95% CI [1.34-4.40], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer subtype and lack of pathological response are predictive factors for high LRR after NAC.

Determinants of variability in waiting times for radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine psycho-social and geographic determinants of delay in starting radiotherapy in early invasive breast cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Waiting time was defined as the time elapsed until the beginning of radiotherapy, starting from the date of surgery (in absence of chemotherapy) or from the end of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Eight hundred and ninety six women aged 24-89 took part in the study. Mean waiting times were 52 days (sd=19) between surgery and radiotherapy and 31 days (sd=14) between chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Differences between radiotherapy centres (p<0.0001) accounted for 30% and 12%, respectively, of total variance in waiting times. Using a multivariate mixed analysis that took into account intra-centre correlation, the time between surgery and radiotherapy was shorter for young patients (p=0.020), those who had sought information about their illness (p=0.024) and those who had undergone surgery and radiotherapy in the same centre (p=0.021). On the other hand, no patient characteristic was associated with the time between chemotherapy and radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Centre is the major factor that explained longer waiting times in radiotherapy, emphasising the structural hypothesis. It is important to pursue initiatives to improve the organization within radiotherapy centres and then to verify that these initiatives have succeeded in shortening waiting times.