European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Incidence and radiotherapy treatment patterns of complicated bone metastases.

Background: Despite the encouraging results of the SCORAD trial, single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) remains underused for patients with complicated bone metastases with rates as low as 18-39%. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and treatment patterns of these metastases in patients being referred to a tertiary centre for palliative radiotherapy. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of all bone metastases treated at our centre from January 2013 until December 2017. Lesions were classified as uncomplicated or complicated. Complicated was defined as associated with (impending) fracture, existing spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Our protocol suggests using SFRT for all patients with complicated bone metastases, except for those with symptomatic neuraxial compression and a life expectancy of ≥28 weeks. Results: Overall, 37 % of all bone metastases were classified as complicated. Most often as a result of an (impending) fracture (56 %) or spinal cord compression (44 %). In 93 % of cases, complicated lesions were located in the spine, most commonly originating from prostate, breast and lung cancer (60 %). Median survival of patients with complicated bone metastases was 4 months. The use of SFRT for complicated bone metastases increased from 51 % to 85 % over the study period, reaching 100 % for patients with the poorest prognosis. Conclusions: Approximately 37 % of bone metastases are classified as complicated with the majority related to (impending) fracture. Patients with complicated bone metastases have a median survival of 4 months and were mostly treated with SFRT.

Comparison of prone and supine positioning for breast cancer radiotherapy using REQUITE data: dosimetry, acute and two years physician and patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients receive whole breast radiotherapy in a supine position. However, two randomised trials showed lower acute toxicity in prone position. Furthermore, in most patients, prone positioning reduced doses to the organs at risk. To confirm these findings, we compared toxicity outcomes, photographic assessment, and dosimetry between both positions using REQUITE data. METHODS: REQUITE is an international multi-centre prospective observational study that recruited 2069 breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Data on toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and dosimetry were collected, as well as a photographic assessment. A matched case control analysis compared patients treated prone (n = 268) versus supine (n = 493). Exact matching was performed for the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, boost, lymph node irradiation, chemotherapy and fractionation, and the nearest neighbour for breast volume. Primary endpoints were dermatitis at the end of radiotherapy, and atrophy and cosmetic outcome by photographic assessment at two years. RESULTS: At the last treatment fraction, there was no significant difference in dermatitis (p = .28) or any HRQoL domain, but prone positioning increased the risk of breast oedema (p < .001). At 2 years, patients treated in prone position had less atrophy (p = .01), and higher body image (p < .001), and social functioning (p < .001) scores. The photographic assessment showed no difference in cosmesis at 2 years (p = .22). In prone position, mean heart dose (MHD) was significantly lower for left-sided patients (1.29 Gy vs 2.10 Gy, p < .001) and ipsilateral mean lung dose (MLD) was significantly lower for all patients (2.77 Gy vs 5.89 Gy, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prone radiotherapy showed lower MLD and MHD compared to supine position, although the risk of developing breast oedema during radiotherapy was higher. At 2 years the photographic assessment showed no difference in the cosmetic outcome, but less atrophy was seen in prone-treated patients and this seems to have a positive influence on the HRQoL domain of body image.

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

Four irradiation and three positioning techniques for whole-breast radiotherapy: Is sophisticated always better?

PURPOSE: We report on a dosimetrical study of three patient positions (supine, prone dive, and prone crawl) and four irradiation techniques for whole-breast irradiation (WBI): wedged-tangential fields (W-TF), tangential-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT), multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT), and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). This is the first study to evaluate prone crawl positioning in WBI and the first study to quantify dosimetrical and anatomical differences with prone dive positioning. METHODS: We analyzed five datasets with left- and right-sided patients (n = 51). One dataset also included deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) data. A total of 252 new treatment plans were composed. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs). Furthermore, anatomical differences among patient positions were quantified to explain dosimetrical differences. RESULTS: Target coverage was inferior for W-TF and supine position. W-TF proved overall inferior, and IMAT proved foremost effective in supine position. TF-IMRT proved competitive to the more demanding MB-IMRT and IMAT in prone dive, but not in prone crawl position. The lung-sparing effect was overall confirmed for both prone dive and prone crawl positioning and was largest for prone crawl. For the heart, no differences were found between prone dive and supine positioning, whereas prone crawl showed cardiac advantages, although minor compared to the established heart-sparing effect of DIBH. Dose differences for contralateral breast were minor among the patient positions. In prone crawl position, the ipsilateral breast sags deeper and the PTV is further away from the OARs than in prone dive position. CONCLUSIONS: The prone dive and prone crawl position are valid alternatives to the supine position in WBI, with largest advantages for lung structures. For the heart, differences are small, which establishes the role of DIBH in different patient positions. These results may be of particular interest to radiotherapy centers with limited technical resources.

Completeness of Reporting Oligometastatic Disease Characteristics in the Literature and Influence on Oligometastatic Disease Classification Using the ESTRO/EORTC Nomenclature.

PURPOSE: There is increasing evidence for the integration of locally ablative therapy into multimodality treatment of oligometastatic disease (OMD). To support standardised data collection, analysis, and comparison, a consensus OMD classification based on fundamental disease and treatment characteristics has previously been established. This study investigated the completeness of reporting the proposed OMD characteristics in literature and evaluated whether the proposed OMD classification system can be applied to the historical data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, searching for prospective and retrospective studies, where stereotactic body radiation therapy was a treatment component of OMD. Reporting of the OMD characteristics as described in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification was analyzed, feasibility to retrospectively classify the proposed OMD states was investigated, and the effect of the categorization on overall survival (OS) was evaluated. RESULTS: Our study shows incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics. The most fully reported characteristic was type of involved organs (88/95 studies); history of cancer progression was the least reported (not mentioned in 50/95 studies). Retrospective OMD classification of existing literature was only possible for 7 of the 95 studies. With respect to categorization as de novo, repeat, or induced OMD, homogeneous patient cohorts were observed in 21 of the 95 studies, most frequently de novo OMD in 20 studies. Differences in OS at 2, 3, or 5 years were not statistically significant between the different states. OS was significantly influenced by primary tumor histology, with superior OS observed for prostate cancer and worst OS observed for non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The largely incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics hampers a retrospective classification of existing literature. To facilitate future comparison of individual studies, as well as validation of the OMD classification, comprehensive reporting of OMD characteristics using standardised terminology is recommended, as proposed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification system and following the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus.

Prone Breast and Lymph Node Irradiation in 5 or 15 Fractions: A Randomized 2 × 2 Design Comparing Dosimetry, Acute Toxicity, and Set-Up Errors.

PURPOSE: Prone whole breast irradiation results in lower dose to organs at risk compared with supine position, especially lung dose. However, the adoption of prone position for whole breast irradiation + lymph node irradiation remains limited and data on lymph node irradiation in 5 fractions are lacking. Although the study was ended prematurely for the primary endpoint (breast retraction at 2 years), we decided to report acute toxicity for prone and supine positions and 5 and 15 fractions. Additionally, dosimetry and set-up accuracy between prone and supine positions were evaluated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A randomized open-label factorial 2 × 2 design was used for an acute toxicity comparison between prone and supine positions and 5 and 15 fractions. The primary endpoint of the trial was breast retraction 2 years after treatment. In total, 57 patients were evaluated. Dosimetry and set-up errors were compared between prone and supine positions. All patients were positioned on either our in -house developed prone crawl breast couch or a Posirest-2 (Civco). RESULTS: No difference in acute toxicity between prone and supine positions was found, but 5 fractions did result in a lower risk of desquamation (15% vs 41%; P = .04). Prone positioning resulted in lower mean ipsilateral lung dose (2.89 vs 4.89 Gy; P < .001), mean thyroid dose (3.42 vs 6.61 Gy; P = .004), and mean contralateral breast dose (0.41 vs 0.54 Gy; P = .007). No significant difference in mean heart dose (0.90 vs 1.07 Gy; P = .22) was found. Set-up accuracy was similar between both positions. CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, the primary endpoint of the trial was not met due to premature closure of the trial. Acceleration in 5 fractions resulted in a lower risk of desquamation. Prone positioning did not influence acute toxicity or set-up accuracy, but did result in lower ipsilateral mean lung dose, thyroid dose, and contralateral breast dose.

Accelerated radiotherapy in patients over sixty years old after mastectomy: Acute and one-year physician-assessed toxicity and health-related quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: Postmastectomy radiotherapy reduces the risk of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer patients. The first results on accelerated radiotherapy in five fractions after breast conserving surgery are promising. The data on postmastectomy radiotherapy in five or six fractions is limited. We now present the data on acute and one-year toxicity and health related quality of life (HRQoL) after postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients of sixty years or older. METHODOLOGY: 119 patients received five fractions of 5.7 Gy to the chest wall and five fractions of 5.4 Gy to the lymph nodes over ten to twelve days. Physician-assessed toxicity were scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 toxicity scoring system and the LENT-SOMA scale. Fatigue was measured by the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-206). HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire the breast cancer specific module and the BREAST-Q questionnaire. RESULTS: Fatigue and edema were the most frequently observed physician-assessed toxicities. One year after radiotherapy only 12.9% experienced a clinically important deterioration in chest wall symptoms and in 22.9% of the patients were improved. Future perspective at one year after radiotherapy was improved in 40.0% of the patients. Patient-reported fatigue showed the greatest improvement. CONCLUSION: Accelerated radiotherapy should be considered to minimize the burden of breast cancer treatment, especially in older patients.

Definitions and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer according to multidisciplinary tumour boards in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists.

Reproducibility of repeated breathhold and impact of breathhold failure in whole breast and regional nodal irradiation in prone crawl position.

In whole breast and regional nodal irradiation (WB + RNI), breathhold increases organ at risk (OAR) sparing. WB + RNI is usually performed in supine position, because positioning materials obstruct beam paths in prone position. Recent advancements allow prone WB + RNI (pWB + RNI) with increased sparing of OARs compared to supine WB + RNI. We evaluate positional and dosimetrical impact of repeated breathhold (RBH) and failure to breathhold (FTBH) in pWB + RNI. Twenty left-sided breast cancer patients were scanned twice in breathhold (baseline and RBH) and once free breathing (i.e. FTBH). Positional impact was evaluated using overlap index (OI) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Dosimetrical impact was assessed by beam transposition from the baseline plan. Mean OI and DSC ranges were 0.01-0.98 and 0.01-0.92 for FTBH, and 0.73-1 and 0.69-1 for RBH. Dosimetric impact of RBH was negligible. FTBH significantly decreased minimal dose to CTV WBI, level II and the internal mammary nodes, with adequate mean doses. FTBH significantly increased heart, LAD, left lung and esophagus dose. OI and DSC for RBH and FTBH show reproducible large ROI positions. Small ROIs show poor overlap. FTBH maintained adequate target coverage but increased heart, LAD, ipsilateral lung and esophagus dose. RBH is a robust technique in pWB + RNI. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05179161, registered 05/01/2022).

Delineation guidelines for the lymphatic target volumes in 'prone crawl' radiotherapy treatment position for breast cancer patients.

Our recently developed prone crawl position (PCP) for radiotherapy of breast cancer patients with lymphatic involvement showed promising preliminary data and it is being optimized for clinical use. An important aspect in this process is making new, position specific delineation guidelines to ensure delineation (for treatment planning) is uniform across different centers. The existing ESTRO and PROCAB guidelines for supine position (SP) were adapted for PCP. Nine volunteers were MRI scanned in both SP and PCP. Lymph node regions were delineated in SP using the existing ESTRO and PROCAB guidelines and were then translated to PCP, based on the observed changes in reference structure position. Nine PCP patient CT scans were used to verify if the new reference structures were consistently identified and easily applicable on different patient CT scans. Based on these data, a team of specialists in anatomy, CT- and MRI radiology and radiation oncology postulated the final guidelines. By taking the ESTRO and PROCAB guidelines for SP into account and by using a relatively big number of datasets, these new PCP specific guidelines incorporate anatomical variability between patients. The guidelines are easily and consistently applicable, even for people with limited previous experience with delineations in PCP.

Effects of deep inspiration breath hold on prone photon or proton irradiation of breast and regional lymph nodes.

We report on a comparative dosimetrical study between deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and shallow breathing (SB) in prone crawl position for photon and proton radiotherapy of whole breast (WB) and locoregional lymph node regions, including the internal mammary chain (LN_MI). We investigate the dosimetrical effects of DIBH in prone crawl position on organs-at-risk for both photon and proton plans. For each modality, we further estimate the effects of lung and heart doses on the mortality risks of different risk profiles of patients. Thirty-one patients with invasive carcinoma of the left breast and pathologically confirmed positive lymph node status were included in this study. DIBH significantly decreased dose to heart for photon and proton radiotherapy. DIBH also decreased lung doses for photons, while increased lung doses were observed using protons because the retracting heart is displaced by low-density lung tissue. For other organs-at-risk, DIBH resulted in significant dose reductions using photons while minor differences in dose deposition between DIBH and SB were observed using protons. In patients with high risks for cardiac and lung cancer mortality, average thirty-year mortality rates from radiotherapy-related cardiac injury and lung cancer were estimated at 3.12% (photon DIBH), 4.03% (photon SB), 1.80% (proton DIBH) and 1.66% (proton SB). The radiation-related mortality risk could not outweigh the ~ 8% disease-specific survival benefit of WB + LN_MI radiotherapy in any of the assessed treatments.

Adoption of single fraction radiotherapy for uncomplicated bone metastases in a tertiary centre.

BACKGROUND: Single-fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) offers equal pain relief for uncomplicated painful bone metastases as compared to multiple-fraction radiotherapy (MFRT). Despite this evidence, the adoption of SFRT has been poor with published rates of SFRT for uncomplicated bone metastases ranging from <10% to 70%. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of SFRT and its evolution over time following the more formal endorsement of the international guidelines in our centre starting from 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of fractionation schedules at our centre for painful uncomplicated bone metastases from January 2013 until December 2017. Only patients treated with 1 × 8 Gy (SFRT-group) or 10 × 3 Gy (MFRT-group) were included. We excluded other fractionation schedules, primary cancer of the bone and post-operative radiotherapy. Uncomplicated was defined as painful but not associated with impending fracture, existing fracture or existing neurological compression. Temporal trends in SFRT/MFRT usage and overall survival were investigated. We performed a lesion-based patterns of care analysis and a patient-based survival analysis. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square test were used to assess differences between fractionation schedules and temporal trends in prescription, with Kaplan-Meier estimates used for survival analysis (p-value <0.05 considered significant). RESULTS: Overall, 352 patients and 594 uncomplicated bone metastases met inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were comparable between SFRT and MFRT, except for age. Overall, SFRT was used in 92% of all metastases compared to 8% for MFRT. SFRT rates increased throughout the study period from 85% in 2013 to 95% in 2017 (p = 0.06). Re-irradiation rates were higher in patients treated with SFRT (14%) as compared to MFRT (4%) (p = 0.046). Four-week mortality and median overall survival did not differ significantly between SFRT and MFRT (17% vs 18%, p = 0.8 and 25 weeks vs 38 weeks, p = 0.97, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the international guidelines for SFRT for uncomplicated bone metastasis was high and increased over time to 95%, which is the highest reported rate in literature.

Two-year toxicity of simultaneous integrated boost in hypofractionated prone breast cancer irradiation: Comparison with sequential boost in a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: A simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) leads to less acute toxicity. Less is known for late toxicity due to SIB. In this first and only randomized trial, two-years toxicity is analysed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Physician-assessed toxicity, using the LENT SOMA scale, and photographs, analysed with the BCCT.core software, was examined for 150 patients, randomized between SIB and sequential boost (SEB). RESULTS: Differences in physician-assessed two-years toxicity and photographic analysis between SIB and SEB are very small and not significant. CONCLUSION: There is no indication that a SIB leads to an excess in toxicity or worse cosmetic outcome at 2 years.

Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life after accelerated whole breast irradiation in 5 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost.

INTRODUCTION: Acceleration of radiotherapy in 5 fractions for breast cancer can reduce the burden of treatment. We report on acute toxicity after whole-breast irradiation with a simultaneous integrated boost in 5 fractions over 10-12 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 200 patients, randomized between a 15- or 5-fractions schedule, were collected, using the CTCAE toxicity scoring system, the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 and the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The prescribed dose to the breast was either 15∗2.67 Gy (40.05 Gy) or 5∗5.7 Gy (28.5 Gy). 90% of patients received a SIB to a cumulative dose of 46.8 Gy (15∗3.12 Gy) or 31 Gy (5∗6.2 Gy). RESULTS: Physician-assessed toxicity was lower for the 5-fractions group. A significant difference was observed for breast pain (p = 0.002), fatigue (p < 0.0001), breast edema (p = 0.001) and dermatitis (p = 0.003). Patients treated in 5 fractions reported better mean HRQoL scores for breast symptoms (p = 0.001) and physical well-being (p = 0.001). A clinically important deterioration in HRQoL of 10 points or more was also less frequently observed in the latter group for physical functioning (p = 0.0005), social functioning (p = 0.0007), fatigue (p = 0.003), breast symptoms (p = 0.0002) and physical well-being (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In this single institute study, acute toxicity of accelerated breast radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 10-12 days seems to compare favourably to hypofractionated breast radiotherapy in 15 fractions. Less breast edema, dermatitis, desquamation, breast pain and fatigue are seen. Social and physical functioning are also less disturbed and patients have a better future perspective.

5-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial Comparing Prone and Supine Whole Breast Irradiation in Large-Breasted Women.

PURPOSE: Prone position for whole breast irradiation (WBI) results in lower rates of toxicity and reduced ipsilateral mean lung and heart doses. No randomized trials comparing toxicity and cosmesis at 5 years with prone and supine positioning are available. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this phase 2 open-label trial, 100 patients with large breast size requiring WBI were randomized between prone and supine positioning. Physician-assessed toxicity (retraction, fibrosis, edema, telangiectasia, pigmentation changes) was scored yearly for a total of 5 years, and photographs were taken at 5 years to assess cosmesis. The data were analyzed longitudinally and cross-sectionally. RESULTS: Longitudinal analysis shows lower grade 2 late toxicity with prone positioning. The results for at least grade 1 physician-assessed toxicity at 5 years are similar between supine and prone position, respectively, for retraction (56% vs 54%), fibrosis outside the tumor bed (33% vs 24%), tumor bed fibrosis (49% vs 46%), edema (11% vs 8%), telangiectasia (8% vs 3%), and breast pain (6% vs 8%) using cross-sectional analysis. However, the risk of pigmentation changes in prone position (0% vs 19%) 5 years after radiation therapy was significantly lower. Cosmesis was good or excellent in 92% and 75% of patients who used prone and supine positioning, respectively. The 5-year overall survival is 96% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Prone positioning results in reduced rates of late toxicity.

Crawl positioning improves set-up precision and patient comfort in prone whole breast irradiation.

Prone positioning for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) reduces dose to organs at risk, but reduces set-up speed, precision, and comfort. We aimed to improve these problems by placing patients in prone crawl position on a newly developed crawl couch (CrC). A group of 10 right-sided breast cancer patients requiring WBI were randomized in this cross-over trial, comparing the CrC to a standard prone breastboard (BB). Laterolateral (LL), craniocaudal (CC) and anterioposterior (AP) set-up errors were evaluated with cone beam CT. Comfort, preference and set-up time (SUT) were assessed. Forty left and right-sided breast cancer patients served as a validation group. For BB versus CrC, AP, LL and CC mean patient shifts were - 0.8 ± 2.8, 0.2 ± 11.7 and - 0.6 ± 4.4 versus - 0.2 ± 3.3, - 0.8 ± 2.5 and - 1.9 ± 5.7 mm. LL shift spread was reduced significantly. Nine out of 10 patients preferred the CrC. SUT did not differ significantly. The validation group had mean patient shifts of 1.7 ± 2.9 (AP), 0.2 ± 3.6 (LL) and - 0.2 ± 3.3 (CC) mm. Mean SUT in the validation group was 1 min longer (P < 0.05) than the comparative group. Median SUT was 3 min in all groups. The CrC improved precision and comfort compared to BB. Set-up errors compare favourably to other prone-WBI trials and rival supine positioning.

Health-related quality of life after accelerated breast irradiation in five fractions: A comparison with fifteen fractions.

INTRODUCTION: In breast cancer patients, duration of illness and treatment have a negative impact on the quality of life. The duration of radiotherapy can be shortened by reducing the number of treatment fractions. In this study, the impact of an accelerated breast irradiation schedule in 5 fractions over 10 to 12 days on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was investigated and compared to a standard hypofractionation schedule of 15 fractions. METHODOLOGY: The study population was composed of 530 patients treated in 15 fractions and 196 patients treated in 5 fractions. Patients were included in different trials evaluating HRQoL. Radiotherapy-related items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 and Breast-Q questionnaires were evaluated by comparing baseline scores to scores at 2-4 weeks and 1 year after radiotherapy. Clinically important improvements and deteriorations of HRQoL were compared between the 2 radiation schedules. RESULTS: Patients treated in 5 fractions show less deterioration of physical well-being 2-4 weeks after radiotherapy. One year after radiotherapy, the 5 fractions schedule results in more patients reporting a clinically important improvement in pain, arm and breast symptoms and future perspective. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 10-12 days results in more improvement and less deterioration of HRQoL than a 15 fractions schedule over 3 weeks.