Comparison of adverse events in partial- or whole breast radiotherapy: investigation of cosmesis, toxicities and quality of life in a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy and systemic therapy are part of the current evidence-based treatment protocols for early breast cancer, after breast-conserving surgery. Numerous randomized trials have investigated the therapeutic effects of partial breast irradiation (PBI) compared to whole breast irradiation (WBI), limiting the treated breast tissue. These trials were designed to achieve equal control of the disease with possible reduction in adverse events, improvements in cosmesis and quality of life (QoL). In this meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the differences between PBI and WBI in side effects and QoL. MATERIAL/METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review searching for randomized trials comparing WBI and PBI in early-stage breast cancer with publication dates after 2009. The meta-analysis was performed using the published event rates and the effect-sizes for available acute and late adverse events. Additionally, we evaluated cosmetic outcomes as well as general and breast-specific QoL using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified (n = 19,085 patients). PBI was associated with a lower prevalence in any grade 1 + acute toxicity and grade 2 + skin toxicity (OR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.09-0.18; p < 0.001); (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.41; p < 0.001). There was neither a significant difference in late adverse events between the two treatments, nor in any unfavorable cosmetic outcomes, rated by either medical professionals or patients. PBI-technique using EBRT with twice-daily fractionation schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients (n = 3215; OR = 2.08; 95% CI 1.22-3.54; p = 0.007) compared to WBI. Maximum once-daily EBRT schedules (n = 2071; OR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.79; p < 0.001) and IORT (p = 0.042) resulted in better cosmetic results grade by medical professionals. Functional- and symptom-based QoL in the C30-scale was not different between PBI and WBI. Breast-specific QoL was superior after PBI in the subdomains of "systemic therapy side effects" as well as "breast-" and "arm symptoms". CONCLUSION: The analysis of multiple randomized trials demonstrate a superiority of PBI in acute toxicity as well breast-specific quality of life, when compared with WBI. Overall, late toxicities and cosmetic results were similar. PBI-technique with a fractionation of twice-daily schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients.

Comparison of Different Systemic Therapeutic Regimes in Resectable Soft-Tissue Sarcoma-Results of a Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment of high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma consists of surgical resection followed by risk-adapted radiation therapy. Further treatment options that may improve local and systemic tumor control, including chemotherapy, are not well established. Due to the heterogeneity of the disease, different systemic approaches as well as their application at different time points have been attempted. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials in the treatment of localized, resectable high-risk adult soft-tissue sarcoma comparing different treatment modalities according to the PRISMA guidelines. We extracted published hazard ratios and number of events for the endpoints overall and disease-free survival (OS; DFS) as well as local and distant recurrence-free interval (LRFI; DRFI). The different modalities were compared in a network meta-analysis against the defined standard treatment surgery ± radiotherapy using the inverse-variance heterogeneity model. RESULTS: The literature search identified 25 trials including 3453 patients. Five different treatment modalities were compared in the network meta-analysis. The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (HR = 0.86; CI-95%: 0.75-0.97; p = 0.017). Likewise, neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with regional hyperthermia (naCTx + HTx) also led to superior OS (HR = 0.45; CI-95%: 0.20-1.00; p = 0.049). Both neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (naCTx) and perioperative chemotherapy (periCTx) did not improve OS (HR = 0.61; CI-95%: 0.29-1.29; p = 0.195 and HR = 0.66; CI-95%: 0.30-1.48; p = 0.317, respectively). Histology-tailored chemotherapy (htCTx) also did not improve survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy (HR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.45-2.61; p = 0.868). The network analysis of DFS, LRFI, and DRFI revealed a similar pattern between the different treatment regimens. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved DFS, LRFI, and DRFI compared to surgery ± radiotherapy. In direct comparison, this advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy was restricted to male patients (HR = 0.78; CI-95%: 0.65-0.92; p = 0.004) with no effect for female patients (HR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.90-1.29; p = 0.410). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized chemotherapy in high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma appears to be of added value irrespective of timing. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be restricted to male patients. The addition of regional hyperthermia to neodjuvant chemotherapy achieved the best effect sizes and might warrant further investigation.