ABSTRACT
Research in the field of local and locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy aims to maintain excellent oncological outcomes while reducing treatment-related toxicity. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) considers variations in target and organs at risk (OARs) anatomy occurring during the treatment course and integrates these in re-optimized treatment plans. Exploiting ART routinely in clinic may result in smaller target volumes and better OAR sparing, which may lead to reduction of acute as well as late toxicities. In this review MR-guided and CT-guided ART for breast cancer patients according to different clinical scenarios (neoadjuvant and adjuvant partial breast irradiation, whole breast, chest wall and regional nodal irradiation) are reviewed and their advantages as well as challenging aspects discussed.
ABSTRACT
Surgery remains the foundation of curative therapy for non-metastatic breast cancer, but many patients do not undergo surgery. Evidence is limited regarding this population. We sought to assess factors associated with lack of surgery and overall survival (OS) in patients not receiving breast cancer surgery. Retrospective cohort study of patients in the US National Cancer Database treated in 2004-2016. The dataset comprised 2,696,734 patients; excluding patients with unknown surgical status or stage IV, cT0, cTx, or pIS, metastatic or recurrent disease resulted in 1,192,294 patients for analysis. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess differences between groups. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with a Cox proportional hazards model performed to assess associated factors. In total 50,626 (4.3%) did not undergo surgery. Black race, age >50 years, lower income, uninsured or public insurance, and lower education were more prevalent in the non-surgical cohort; this group was also more likely to have more comorbidities, higher disease stage, and more aggressive disease biology. Only 3,689 non-surgical patients (7.3%) received radiation therapy (RT). Median OS time for the non-surgical patients was 58 months (3-year and 5-year OS rates 63% and 49%). Median OS times were longer for patients who received chemotherapy (80 vs 50 (no-chemo) months) and RT (85 vs 56 (no-RT) months). On multivariate analysis, age, race, income, insurance status, comorbidity score, disease stage, tumor subtype, treatment facility type and location, and receipt of RT were associated with OS. On subgroup analysis, receipt of chemotherapy improved OS for patients with triple negative (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59-0.75, P < 0.001) and HER2+ (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84, P < 0.001) subgroups while RT improved OS for ER+ (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82, P < 0.001) and favorable-disease (ER+, early-stage, age >60) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.83, P = 0.002) subgroups. Approximately 4% of women with breast cancer do not undergo surgery, particularly those with more aggressive disease and lower socioeconomic status. Despite its benefits, RT was underutilized. This study provides a benchmark of survival outcomes for patients who do not undergo surgery and highlights a potential role for use of RT.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Passive scattering proton beam (PSPB) radiotherapy for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) provides superior dosimetry for APBI three-dimensional conformal photon radiotherapy (3DCRT). Here we examine the potential incremental benefit of intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) for APBI and compare its dosimetry with PSPB and 3DCRT. METHODS: Two theoretical IMPT plans, TANGENT_PAIR and TANGENT_ENFACE, were created for 11 patients previously treated with 3DCRT APBI and were compared with PSPB and 3DCRT plans for the same CT data sets. The impact of range, motion and set-up uncertainties as well as scanned spot mismatching between fields of IMPT plans was evaluated. RESULTS: IMPT plans for APBI were significantly better regarding breast skin sparing (p<0.005) and other normal tissue sparing than 3DCRT plans (p<0.01) with comparable target coverage (p=ns). IMPT plans were statistically better than PSPB plans regarding breast skin (p<0.002) and non-target breast (p<0.007) in higher dose regions but worse or comparable in lower dose regions. IMPT plans using TANGENT_ENFACE were superior to that using TANGENT_PAIR in terms of target coverage (p<0.003) and normal tissue sparing (p<0.05) in low-dose regions. IMPT uncertainties were demonstrated for multiple causes. Qualitative comparison of dose-volume histogram confidence intervals for IMPT suggests that numeric gains may be offset by IMPT uncertainties. CONCLUSION: Using current clinical dosimetry, PSPB provides excellent dosimetry compared with 3DCRT with fewer uncertainties compared with IMPT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: As currently delivered in the clinic, PSPB planning for APBI provides as good or better dosimetry than IMPT with less uncertainty.
