Can patient-, treatment- and pathology-related characteristics explain the high local recurrence rate following breast-conserving therapy in young patients?

The aim of this study was to identify patient-, tumour- or treatment-related factors associated with young age that might explain the higher risk of ipsilateral breast recurrence that occurs after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) in young breast cancer patients. In the 'boost versus no boost trial', 5569 early-stage breast cancer patients were entered. All patients underwent tumorectomy followed by whole breast irradiation of 50 Gy. Patients having a microscopically complete excision were randomised between receiving no boost or a 16-Gy boost, while patients with a microscopically incomplete excision were randomised between receiving a boost dose of 10 or 26 Gy. The 5-year local control rate was 82% for patients 60 years of age (P<0.0001). In young patients, the tumour was significantly larger and more often oestrogen and progesterone receptor-negative. Invasive carcinoma and the intraductal component were more often of a high grade. The intraductal component was more frequently incompletely resected in young patients. Re-excisions were performed more often (most probably due to a more frequent incomplete excision at the first attempt). The total volume of breast tissue removed at the tumorectomy was smaller in the younger patient group, even after including the volume removed during re-excision. When relating all these parameters (including age itself) to local control, the multivariate analysis stratified by treatment showed that age was the only independent prognostic factor for local control (P=0.0001). Including the boost treatment as a separate covariate, the analysis retained age and boost treatment as significant factors related to local control (P<0.0001). It was shown that the boost dose significantly reduced the 5-year local recurrence rate from 7 to 4% for patients with a complete excision (P<0.001). For patients 40 years of age or younger, the boost dose reduced the local recurrence rate from 20 to 10% (P=0.002). This large European Orgnaization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial demonstrated an increased local recurrence rate in young patients. Although several associations between patient, tumour and treatment factors and age were found, that might explain the high local recurrence rate in the younger patients, it appears that age itself and the boost dose were the only factors that were independently related to local control.

The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC 'boost vs. no boost' trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups.

PURPOSE: To analyze the influence of different patient, tumor, and treatment parameters on the cosmetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy at 3-year follow-up. A subjective and an objective cosmetic scoring method was used and the results of both methods were compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In EORTC trial 22881/10882, 5569 early-stage breast cancer patients were treated with tumorectomy and axillary dissection, followed by tangential fields irradiation of the breast to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 weeks, at 2 Gy per fraction. A total of 5318 patients, having a microscopically complete tumorectomy, were randomized between no further treatment and a boost of 16 Gy to the primary tumor bed. The cosmetic result at 3-year follow-up was assessed by a panel for 731 patients, and by digitizer measurements, measuring the displacement of the nipple, for 1141 patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between various patient, tumor, and treatment factors and cosmesis. RESULTS: The factors associated with a worsened cosmesis according to the panel evaluation were: an inferior tumor location, a large excision volume, the presence of postoperative breast complications, and the radiotherapy boost. According to the digitizer measurements, a central/superior tumor location, a large excision volume, an increased pathological tumor size, an increased radiation dose inhomogeneity, and an increased bra cup size resulted in an increased asymmetry in nipple position. It appeared that the evaluation of the nipple position (whether by panel or by digitizer) is only moderately representative of the overall cosmetic outcome. CONCLUSION: To achieve a good cosmesis, it is necessary to excise the tumor with a limited margin, to avoid postoperative complications, to assess the need for a boost in the individual patient, and to give the radiation dose as homogeneously as possible. As far as the method of evaluation is concerned, the panel evaluation is the most appropriate method for giving an overall impression of the cosmetic result after breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The use of the digitizer is recommended for comparing the cosmetic outcome of two different approaches to BCT or for analyzing cosmetic changes over time.

Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC "boost versus no boost" trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate both qualitative and quantitative scoring methods for the cosmetic result after breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and to compare the usefulness and reliability of these methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In EORTC trial 22881/10882, stage I and II breast cancer patients were treated with tumorectomy and axillary dissection. A total of 5318 patients were randomized between no boost and a boost of 16 Gy following whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy. The cosmetic result was assessed for 731 patients in two ways. A panel scored the qualitative appearance of the breast using photographs taken after surgery and 3 years later. Digitizer measurements of the displacement of the nipple were also made using these photographs in order to calculate the breast retraction assessment (BRA). The cosmetic results after 3-year follow-up were used to analyze the correlation between the panel evaluation and digitizer measurements. RESULTS: For the panel evaluation the intraobserver agreement for the global cosmetic score as measured by the simple Kappa statistic was 0.42, considered moderate agreement. The multiple Kappa statistic for interobserver agreement for the global cosmetic score was 0.28, considered fair agreement. The specific cosmetic items scored by the panel were all significantly related to the global cosmetic score; breast size and shape influenced the global score most. For the digitizer measurements, the standard deviation from the average value of 30.0 mm was 2.3 mm (7.7%) for the intraobserver variability and 2.6 mm (8.7%) for the interobserver variability. The two methods were significantly, though moderately, correlated; some items scored by the panel were only correlated to the digitizer measurements if the tumor was not located in the inferior quadrant of the breast. CONCLUSIONS: The intra- and interobserver variability of the digitizer evaluation of cosmesis was smaller than that of the panel evaluation. However, there are some treatment sequelae, such as disturbing scars and skin changes, that can not be evaluated by BRA measurements. Therefore, the methods of cosmetic evaluation used in a study must be chosen in a way that balances reliability and comprehensiveness.

The influence of the boost in breast-conserving therapy on cosmetic outcome in the EORTC "boost versus no boost" trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of a radiotherapy boost on the cosmetic outcome after 3 years of follow-up in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In EORTC trial 22881/10882, 5569 Stage I and II breast cancer patients were treated with tumorectomy and axillary dissection, followed by tangential irradiation of the breast to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 weeks, at 2 Gy per fraction. Patients having a microscopically complete tumor excision were randomized between no boost and a boost of 16 Gy. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated by a panel, scoring photographs of 731 patients taken soon after surgery and 3 years later, and by digitizer measurements, measuring the displacement of the nipple of 3000 patients postoperatively and of 1141 patients 3 years later. RESULTS: There was no difference in the cosmetic outcome between the two treatment arms after surgery, before the start of radiotherapy. At 3-year follow-up, both the panel evaluation and the digitizer measurements showed that the boost had a significant adverse effect on the cosmetic result. The panel evaluation at 3 years showed that 86% of patients in the no-boost group had an excellent or good global result, compared to 71% of patients in the boost group (p = 0.0001). The digitizer measurements at 3 years showed a relative breast retraction assessment (pBRA) of 7.6 pBRA in the no-boost group, compared to 8.3 pBRA in the boost group, indicating a worse cosmetic result in the boost group at follow-up (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that a boost dose of 16 Gy had a negative, but limited, impact on the cosmetic outcome after 3 years.