Nafisha Lalani1, Lawrence Paszat1, Rinku Sutradhar2, Deva Thiruchelvam2, Sharon Nofech-Mozes3, Wedad Hanna3, Elzbieta Slodkowska3, Susan J Done4, Naomi Miller5, Bruce Youngson5, Alan Tuck6, Sandip Sengupta7, Leela Elavathil8, Martin C Chang9, Prashant A Jani10, Michel Bonin11, Eileen Rakovitch12. 1. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Campbell Family Institute for Breast Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and Saint Joseph's Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Juravinski Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 9. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. 11. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. 12. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: eileen.rakovitch@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whole-breast radiation therapy (XRT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may decrease the risk of local recurrence, but the optimal dose regimen remains unclear. Past studies administered 50 Gy in 25 fractions (conventional); however, treatment pattern studies report that hypofractionated (HF) regimens (42.4 Gy in 16 fractions) are frequently used. We report the impact of HF (vs conventional) on the risk of local recurrence after BCS for DCIS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All women with DCIS treated with BCS and XRT in Ontario, Canada from 1994 to 2003 were identified. Treatment and outcomes were assessed through administrative databases and validated by chart review. Survival analyses were performed. To account for systematic differences between women treated with alternate regimens, we used a propensity score adjustment approach. RESULTS: We identified 1609 women, of whom 971 (60%) received conventional regimens and 638 (40%) received HF. A total of 489 patients (30%) received a boost dose, of whom 143 (15%) received conventional radiation therapy and 346 (54%) received HF. The median follow-up time was 9.2 years. The median age at diagnosis was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR], 49-65 years). On univariate analyses, the 10-year actuarial local recurrence-free survival was 86% for conventional radiation therapy and 89% for HF (P=.03). On multivariable analyses, age <45 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.6-3.4; P<.0001), high (HR=2.9; 95% CI: 1.2-7.3; P=.02) or intermediate nuclear grade (HR=2.7; 95% CI: 1.1-6.6; P=.04), and positive resection margins (HR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.0-2.1; P=.05) were associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. HF was not significantly associated with an increased risk of local recurrence compared with conventional radiation therapy on multivariate analysis (HR=0.8; 95% CI: 0.5-1.2; P=.34). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of local recurrence among individuals treated with HF regimens after BCS for DCIS was similar to that among individuals treated with conventional radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: Whole-breast radiation therapy (XRT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may decrease the risk of local recurrence, but the optimal dose regimen remains unclear. Past studies administered 50 Gy in 25 fractions (conventional); however, treatment pattern studies report that hypofractionated (HF) regimens (42.4 Gy in 16 fractions) are frequently used. We report the impact of HF (vs conventional) on the risk of local recurrence after BCS for DCIS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All women with DCIS treated with BCS and XRT in Ontario, Canada from 1994 to 2003 were identified. Treatment and outcomes were assessed through administrative databases and validated by chart review. Survival analyses were performed. To account for systematic differences between women treated with alternate regimens, we used a propensity score adjustment approach. RESULTS: We identified 1609 women, of whom 971 (60%) received conventional regimens and 638 (40%) received HF. A total of 489 patients (30%) received a boost dose, of whom 143 (15%) received conventional radiation therapy and 346 (54%) received HF. The median follow-up time was 9.2 years. The median age at diagnosis was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR], 49-65 years). On univariate analyses, the 10-year actuarial local recurrence-free survival was 86% for conventional radiation therapy and 89% for HF (P=.03). On multivariable analyses, age <45 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.6-3.4; P<.0001), high (HR=2.9; 95% CI: 1.2-7.3; P=.02) or intermediate nuclear grade (HR=2.7; 95% CI: 1.1-6.6; P=.04), and positive resection margins (HR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.0-2.1; P=.05) were associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. HF was not significantly associated with an increased risk of local recurrence compared with conventional radiation therapy on multivariate analysis (HR=0.8; 95% CI: 0.5-1.2; P=.34). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of local recurrence among individuals treated with HF regimens after BCS for DCIS was similar to that among individuals treated with conventional radiation therapy.
Authors: Icro Meattini; Marta Scorsetti; Fiorenza De Rose; Maria Carmen De Santis; Bruno Meduri; Ciro Franzese; Davide Franceschini; Pierfrancesco Franco; Nadia Pasinetti; Valentina Lancellotta; Patrizia Giacobazzi; Eliana La Rocca; Elisa D'Angelo; Laura Lozza; Lorenzo Livi Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Isabel J Boero; Anthony J Paravati; Daniel P Triplett; Lindsay Hwang; Rayna K Matsuno; Loren K Mell; James D Murphy Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Yasmin Hasan; Joseph Waller; Katharine Yao; Steven J Chmura; Dezheng Huo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Simona F Shaitelman; Xiudong Lei; Alastair Thompson; Pamela Schlembach; Elizabeth S Bloom; Isidora Y Arzu; Daniel Buchholz; Gregory Chronowski; Tomas Dvorak; Emily Grade; Karen Hoffman; George Perkins; Valerie K Reed; Shalin J Shah; Michael C Stauder; Eric A Strom; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Diana N Amaya; Yu Shen; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544