Liv Veldeman1, Kimberly Schiettecatte2, Charlotte De Sutter2, Christel Monten2, Annick van Greveling2, Patrick Berkovic3, Thomas Mulliez2, Wilfried De Neve4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Radiotherapy and Experimental Cancer Research, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: liv.veldeman@uzgent.be. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Radiotherapy and Experimental Cancer Research, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the 2-year cosmetic outcome of a randomized trial comparing prone and supine whole-breast irradiation in large-breasted patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred patients with a (European) cup size ≥C were included. Before and 2 years after radiation therapy, clinical endpoints were scored and digital photographs were taken with the arms alongside the body and with the arms elevated 180°. Three observers rated the photographs using the 4-point Harvard cosmesis scale. Cosmesis was also evaluated with the commercially available Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment.cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up data and photographs were available for 94 patients (47 supine treated and 47 prone treated). Patient and treatment characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. A worsening of color change occurred more frequently in the supine than in the prone cohort (19/46 vs 10/46 patients, respectively, P=.04). Five patients in the prone group (11%) and 12 patients in the supine group (26%) presented with a worse scoring of edema at 2-year follow-up (P=.06). For retraction and fibrosis, no significant differences were found between the 2 cohorts, although scores were generally worse in the supine cohort. The cosmetic scoring by 3 observers did not reveal differences between the prone and supine groups. On the photographs with the hands up, 7 patients in the supine group versus none in the prone group had a worsening of cosmesis of 2 categories using the BCCT.org software (P=.02). CONCLUSION: With a limited follow-up of 2 years, better cosmetic outcome was observed in prone-treated than in supine-treated patients.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To report the 2-year cosmetic outcome of a randomized trial comparing prone and supine whole-breast irradiation in large-breasted patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred patients with a (European) cup size ≥C were included. Before and 2 years after radiation therapy, clinical endpoints were scored and digital photographs were taken with the arms alongside the body and with the arms elevated 180°. Three observers rated the photographs using the 4-point Harvard cosmesis scale. Cosmesis was also evaluated with the commercially available Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment.cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up data and photographs were available for 94 patients (47 supine treated and 47 prone treated). Patient and treatment characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. A worsening of color change occurred more frequently in the supine than in the prone cohort (19/46 vs 10/46 patients, respectively, P=.04). Five patients in the prone group (11%) and 12 patients in the supine group (26%) presented with a worse scoring of edema at 2-year follow-up (P=.06). For retraction and fibrosis, no significant differences were found between the 2 cohorts, although scores were generally worse in the supine cohort. The cosmetic scoring by 3 observers did not reveal differences between the prone and supine groups. On the photographs with the hands up, 7 patients in the supine group versus none in the prone group had a worsening of cosmesis of 2 categories using the BCCT.org software (P=.02). CONCLUSION: With a limited follow-up of 2 years, better cosmetic outcome was observed in prone-treated than in supine-treated patients.
Authors: Hans Van Hulle; Vincent Vakaet; Giselle Post; Annick Van Greveling; Chris Monten; An Hendrix; Koen Van de Vijver; Jo Van Dorpe; Pieter De Visschere; Geert Braems; Katrien Vandecasteele; Hannelore Denys; Wilfried De Neve; Liv Veldeman Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-10-10
Authors: Benjamin T Cooper; Xiaochun Li; Samuel M Shin; Aram S Modrek; Howard C Hsu; J K DeWyngaert; Gabor Jozsef; Stella C Lymberis; Judith D Goldberg; Silvia C Formenti Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-08-09
Authors: Pieter Deseyne; Bruno Speleers; Wilfried De Neve; Bert Boute; Leen Paelinck; Tom Van Hoof; Joris Van de Velde; Annick Van Greveling; Chris Monten; Giselle Post; Herman Depypere; Liv Veldeman Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Bert Boute; Wilfried De Neve; Bruno Speleers; Annick Van Greveling; Christel Monten; Tom Van Hoof; Joris Van de Velde; Leen Paelinck; Werner De Gersem; Tom Vercauteren; Jan Detand; Liv Veldeman Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Bruno A Speleers; Francesca M Belosi; Werner R De Gersem; Pieter R Deseyne; Leen M Paelinck; Alessandra Bolsi; Antony J Lomax; Bert G Boute; Annick E Van Greveling; Christel M Monten; Joris J Van de Velde; Tom H Vercauteren; Liv Veldeman; Damien C Weber; Wilfried C De Neve Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Bruno Speleers; Max Schoepen; Francesca Belosi; Vincent Vakaet; Wilfried De Neve; Pieter Deseyne; Leen Paelinck; Tom Vercauteren; Michael J Parkes; Tony Lomax; Annick Van Greveling; Alessandra Bolsi; Damien C Weber; Liv Veldeman; Werner De Gersem Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.379