RESUMEN
Importance: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves local-regional disease control and patient survival. Hypofractionation (HF) regimens have comparable efficacy and complication rates with improved quality of life compared with conventional fractionation (CF) schedules. However, the use of HF after mastectomy in patients undergoing breast reconstruction has not been prospectively examined. Objective: To compare HF and CF PMRT outcomes after implant-based reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed patients 18 years or older undergoing mastectomy and immediate expander or implant reconstruction for breast cancer (Tis, TX, or T1-3) and unilateral PMRT from March 8, 2018, to November 3, 2021 (median [range] follow-up, 40.4 [15.4-63.0] months), at 16 US cancer centers or hospitals. Analyses were conducted between September and December 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to HF or CF PMRT. Chest wall doses were 4256 cGy for 16 fractions for HF and 5000 cGy for 25 fractions for CF. Chest wall toxic effects were defined as a grade 3 or higher adverse event. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in physical well-being (PWB) domain of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality-of-life assessment tool at 6 months after starting PMRT, controlling for age. Secondary outcomes included toxic effects and cancer recurrence. Results: Of 400 women (201 in the CF arm and 199 in the HF arm; median [range] age, 47 [23-79] years), 330 patients had PWB scores at baseline and at 6 months. There was no difference in the change in PWB between the study arms (estimate, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.86 to 1.11; P = .80), but there was a significant interaction between age group and study arm (P = .03 for interaction). Patients younger than 45 years had higher 6-month absolute PWB scores if treated with HF rather than CF regimens (23.6 [95% CI, 22.7-24.6] vs 22.0 [95% CI, 20.7-23.3]; P = .047) and reported being less bothered by adverse effects (mean [SD], 3.0 [0.9] in the HF arm and 2.6 [1.2] in the CF arm; P = .02) or nausea (mean [SD], 3.8 [0.4] in the HF arm and 3.6 [0.8] in the CF arm; P = .04). In the as-treated cohort, there were 23 distant (11 in the HF arm and 12 in the CF arm) and 2 local-regional (1 in the HF arm and 1 in the CF arm) recurrences. Chest wall toxic effects occurred in 39 patients (20 in the HF arm and 19 in the CF arm) at a median (IQR) of 7.2 (1.8-12.9) months. Fractionation was not associated with chest wall toxic effects on multivariate analysis (HF arm: hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-2.00; P = .95). Fewer patients undergoing HF vs CF regimens had a treatment break (5 [2.7%] vs 15 [7.7%]; P = .03) or required unpaid time off from work (17 [8.5%] vs 34 [16.9%]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the HF regimen did not significantly improve change in PWB compared with the CF regimen. These data add to the increasing experience with HF PMRT in patients with implant-based reconstruction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03422003.
RESUMEN
UNLABELLED: Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Previously, rates of potency preservation with or without external beam radiation and/ or hormone therapy have been published with smaller series and limited follow-up. The study provides greater numbers and longer follow-up giving patients and clinicians a better appreciation of the true potency preservation rates in this population and how various factors such as age, hormone use and external beam affect those rates. OBJECTIVES: ⢠To assess potency preservation in men following brachytherapy for prostate cancer with or without external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ⢠To evaluate the factors that significantly impact this rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ⢠In all, 1063 potent men with T1-T3 prostate cancer were treated from 1990 to 2007 with seed implantation alone ((103) Pd or (125) I) (69.6%) or combined modality treatment consisting of a partial dose (103) Pd implant followed 6-8 weeks later by EBRT (45 Gy, prostate/seminal vesicles only) (30.4%). ADT was used in 49.1% of cases (range 1-27 months). ⢠Patients were required to have a minimum of 2 years follow-up and to be off ADT for a minimum of 1 year. ⢠Erectile function was assessed prior to seed implantation and at each follow-up visit using the physician-assigned Mount Sinai Erectile Function Score (MSEFS): 0, unable to have erections; 1, erections insufficient for intercourse; 2, suboptimal erections but sufficient for intercourse; 3, normal erectile function. Potent was defined as a score of greater than or equal to 2 with or without use of a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor. ⢠The potency rate was calculated using actuarial methods with comparisons tested by log-rank and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: ⢠The 5-year and 10-year actuarial rate of potency preservation was 68.0% and 57.9%, respectively, at last follow-up. ⢠On multivariate analysis, 5- and 10-year potency was 87.6% (79.5%) for men younger than 60, 68.0% (57.5%) for age 60-70, and 42.2% (31.0%) for men older than 70 (P < 0.001). ⢠Pretreatment MSEFS of 2 had a potency rate of 51.7% (37.2%) vs 74.2% (65.2%) for an MSEFS of 3 (P < 0.001). ⢠There was a 75.8% (62.6%) potency rate without ADT vs 60.0% (53.0%) with ADT (P < 0.001). ⢠Five-year potency was 76.4% for implant alone, 71.0% for implant with EBRT, 62.2% for implant with ADT, and 57.9% for implant with EBRT and ADT (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ⢠Increasing initial age at implant, diminished pretreatment erectile function and the use of combination therapy with EBRT and/or ADT significantly increases erectile dysfunction following brachytherapy.
