Sylvie Vass1, Isabelle Bairati. 1. Department of Radio-oncology, Complexe Hospitalier de la Sagamie, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare cosmetic results of two different radiotherapy (RT) boost techniques used in the treatment of breast cancer after whole breast radiotherapy and to identify factors affecting cosmetic outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1996 and 1998, 142 patients with Stage I and II breast cancer were treated with breast conservative surgery and adjuvant RT. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive a boost dose of 15 Gy delivered to the tumor bed either by iridium 192, or a combination of photons and electrons. Cosmetic evaluations were done on a 6-month basis, with a final evaluation at 36 months after RT. The evaluations were done using a panel of global and specific subjective scores, a digitized scoring system using the breast retraction assessment (BRA) measurement, and a patient's self-assessment evaluation. As cosmetic results were graded according to severity, the comparison of boost techniques was done using the ordinal logistic regression model. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. RESULTS: At 36 months of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the global subjective cosmetic outcome (OR = 1.40; 95%CI = 0.69-2.85, p = 0.35). Good to excellent scores were observed in 65% of implant patients and 62% of photon/electron patients. At 24 months and beyond, telangiectasia was more severe in the implant group with an OR of 9.64 (95%CI = 4.05-22.92, p < 0.0001) at 36 months. The only variable associated with a worse global cosmetic outcome was the presence of concomitant chemotherapy (OR = 3.87; 95%CI = 1.74-8.62). The BRA value once adjusted for age, concomitant chemotherapy, and boost volume showed a positive association with the boost technique. The BRA value was significantly greater in the implant group (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the patient's final self-assessment score between the two groups. Three variables were statistically associated with an adverse self-evaluation: an inferior quadrant tumor localization, postoperative hematoma, and concomitant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial showed that at 36 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the overall global cosmetic scores between the implant boost group and the photon/electron boost group, telangiectasia was more severe and the BRA value was greater in the implant group.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare cosmetic results of two different radiotherapy (RT) boost techniques used in the treatment of breast cancer after whole breast radiotherapy and to identify factors affecting cosmetic outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1996 and 1998, 142 patients with Stage I and II breast cancer were treated with breast conservative surgery and adjuvant RT. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive a boost dose of 15 Gy delivered to the tumor bed either by iridium 192, or a combination of photons and electrons. Cosmetic evaluations were done on a 6-month basis, with a final evaluation at 36 months after RT. The evaluations were done using a panel of global and specific subjective scores, a digitized scoring system using the breast retraction assessment (BRA) measurement, and a patient's self-assessment evaluation. As cosmetic results were graded according to severity, the comparison of boost techniques was done using the ordinal logistic regression model. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. RESULTS: At 36 months of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the global subjective cosmetic outcome (OR = 1.40; 95%CI = 0.69-2.85, p = 0.35). Good to excellent scores were observed in 65% of implant patients and 62% of photon/electron patients. At 24 months and beyond, telangiectasia was more severe in the implant group with an OR of 9.64 (95%CI = 4.05-22.92, p < 0.0001) at 36 months. The only variable associated with a worse global cosmetic outcome was the presence of concomitant chemotherapy (OR = 3.87; 95%CI = 1.74-8.62). The BRA value once adjusted for age, concomitant chemotherapy, and boost volume showed a positive association with the boost technique. The BRA value was significantly greater in the implant group (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the patient's final self-assessment score between the two groups. Three variables were statistically associated with an adverse self-evaluation: an inferior quadrant tumor localization, postoperative hematoma, and concomitant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial showed that at 36 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the overall global cosmetic scores between the implant boost group and the photon/electron boost group, telangiectasia was more severe and the BRA value was greater in the implant group.
Authors: Aurora Rodríguez Pérez; Maria Concepción López Carrizosa; Pilar Maria Samper Ots; José Fermín Pérez-Regadera Gómez; José Zapatero Ortuño; Juan de Dios Sáez Garrido; Manuel Joaquín Martín de Miguel Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Sounok Sen; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; Kenneth B Roberts; James B Yu; Beth-Ann Lesnikoski; Joseph S Ross; Harlan M Krumholz; Cary P Gross Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: M Arenas; S Sabater; V Hernández; I Henríquez; A Ameijide; Ll Anglada; E Mur; M Artigues; A Lafuerza; J Borras Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: J Sanz; N Rodríguez; P Foro; J Dengra; A Reig; P Pérez; I Membrive; A Ortiz; M Codinach; M Algara Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M A Bollet; A Savignoni; J-Y Pierga; M Lae; V Fourchotte; Y M Kirova; R Dendale; F Campana; B Sigal-Zafrani; R Salmon; A Fourquet; A Vincent-Salomon Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 7.640