Patient-reported quality of life with interstitial partial breast brachytherapy and external beam whole breast radiotherapy: a comparison using propensity-score matching.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported quality of life (QOL) scores after accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using interstitial brachytherapy vs. external beam whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) for breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Women with breast cancer treated with WBRT or APBI after breast conservation surgery were enrolled in this prospective study. Single cross-sectional QOL assessment was performed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23 questionnaires. Patients treated with APBI were propensity-score matched to similar cohort of patients treated with WBRT. QOL scores were analyzed for the entire unmatched cohort and compared between the two matched cohorts using Student's two-tailed t-test. P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and a 10-point difference between mean scores was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: A total of 64 APBI patients were matched with 99 WBRT patients out of the entire study cohort of 320 cases. QOL scores for functional scales of QLQ-C30 were similar between the two groups for both matched and unmatched cohorts, while symptom scores of QLQ-C30 did not show any clinically significant difference. Functional scales of BR-23 did not show any clinical or statistically significant difference. Among symptom scales of BR-23, scores were similar for APBI and WBRT groups except for a worse score of "upset by hair loss" sub-scale in the brachytherapy group of the matched cohort (51.9 vs. 22.7, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing APBI reported similar QOL compared to WBRT when matched for various factors.

Comparison of subjective, objective and patient-reported cosmetic outcomes between accelerated partial breast irradiation and whole breast radiotherapy: a prospective propensity score-matched pair analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the early cosmetic outcomes after whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) by various cosmetic assessment methods. MATERIALS/METHODS: APBI was delivered using multiplane interstitial brachytherapy as per standard guidelines. Majority of women in WBRT cohort received hypo-fractionated external beam radiotherapy using bitangential portals and mega-voltage photons along with sequential boost to the tumor bed. Single cross-sectional assessment (18-36 months post-treatment completion) of the breast cosmesis was done by RO, SO and the patient using the modified Harvard scale and by photographic assessment using the BCCT.core software. The two cohorts were propensity score-matched using menopausal status, size of surgical cavity, size of tumor in greatest dimension, median number of lymph nodes dissected, treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy and treatment with hormonal therapy. RESULTS: A total of 64 APBI patients were matched with 99 WBRT patients of the entire cohort of 320. At a median follow-up of 25 months, cosmetic results were significantly better for APBI as compared to WBRT cohort by all methods of evaluation (excellent/good: RO:75% vs 38.4%, p = 0.0001; SO: 54.7% vs 37.4%, p = 0.009; patient: 87.5% vs 58.6%, p = 0.001 and BCCT: 73.4% vs 51.6%, p = 0.001). Individual parameters that were significantly better in APBI cohort included size and shape of breast as well as location and shape of NAC. Better results for individual BCCT parameters (pLBC, pBRE, pBAD) were also seen. CONCLUSIONS: Overall cosmetic outcomes as well as individual subdomains are significantly better with APBI as compared to WBRT by all methods of assessment of cosmesis when matched for various factors.

A prospective comparison of subjective and objective assessments of cosmetic outcomes following breast brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We evaluated agreement between subjective and objective methods of cosmesis scoring in an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive women treated with APBI using interstitial brachytherapy reported for clinical follow-up every 6 months. Single cross-sectional assessment of the breast cosmesis was done by a radiation oncologist (subjective method) using Harvard scale and by photographic assessment using BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment. Cosmetic results, version 3.1) software (objective method) at 18-36 months post-APBI. The agreement between subjective and objective methods for the overall score as well as individual subjective/objective subdomains was computed using kappa statistics. ANOVA was used to test the correlation between objective indices and subjective subdomains. RESULTS: The agreement between the subjective (physician) and objective assessment was good with a kappa of 0.673. Overall, 77 (98.7%) patients were satisfied with the overall outcomes of breast conservation therapy. The kappa agreement between physician and patient scoring was 0.457 (95% CI: 0.240-0.674). Among the subjective subdomains, location of the nipple areola complex (NAC) had good agreement with both the overall subjective and objective score, with the kappa of 0.778 and 0.547, respectively. In the objective indices, BCE (breast compliance evaluation), LBC (lower breast contour), and UNR (unilateral nipple retraction) correlated significantly with the subjective subdomains: location of the NAC, breast size, and shape (p < 0.05 for all indices). CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement exists for overall cosmetic outcomes measured by subjective and objective methods. Location of the NAC, breast size and shape are the most important parameters determining cosmetic outcomes irrespective of the method of assessment.