J Sanz1,2,3, N Rodríguez4,5,6, P Foro4,5,6, J Dengra4,5, A Reig4,5, P Pérez4,5, I Membrive4,5, A Ortiz4, M Codinach6, M Algara4,5,6. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital de l'Esperança, Parc de Salut Mar, Avinguda Sant Josep de la Muntanya 12, 08024, Barcelona, Spain. jsanz@parcdesalutmar.cat. 2. Radiation Oncology Research Group, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Médica (IMIM), Doctor Aiguader, 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. jsanz@parcdesalutmar.cat. 3. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Campus Universitari Mar Carrer del Dr. Aiguader, 80, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. jsanz@parcdesalutmar.cat. 4. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital de l'Esperança, Parc de Salut Mar, Avinguda Sant Josep de la Muntanya 12, 08024, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Radiation Oncology Research Group, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Médica (IMIM), Doctor Aiguader, 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Campus Universitari Mar Carrer del Dr. Aiguader, 80, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of hypofractionated boost after hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in breast carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients after breast conservative surgery were treated all time with hypofractionation of 2.67 Gy/day. Whole breast dose was 40.05 Gy followed in case of risk of local relapse by a boost of 16.02 Gy or 8.01 Gy. Acute and chronic toxicity results were evaluated including cosmetic software-assisted assessment and objective evaluation of fibrosis parameters (elasticity and hydration) by means of a skin tester. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients were evaluated. Acute toxicities comprised grade 1 dermatitis in 48.1 %, grade 2 in 44.5 % and grade 3 in 17 patients 4.7 %, respectively. After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, in 308 cases (86.6 %) there was no chronic skin or subcutaneous changes. In the first consecutive 50 patients, measures with skin tester showed no statistical differences in parameters for skin and subcutaneous fibrosis. Cosmetic results were considered excellent and good in 26 and 62 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Boost to tumour bed with hypofractionated doses is well tolerated and acute and chronic toxicities are mild with good cosmetic results. Objective systems are encouraging methods to assess skin quality and cosmesis.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of hypofractionated boost after hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in breast carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients after breast conservative surgery were treated all time with hypofractionation of 2.67 Gy/day. Whole breast dose was 40.05 Gy followed in case of risk of local relapse by a boost of 16.02 Gy or 8.01 Gy. Acute and chronic toxicity results were evaluated including cosmetic software-assisted assessment and objective evaluation of fibrosis parameters (elasticity and hydration) by means of a skin tester. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients were evaluated. Acute toxicities comprised grade 1 dermatitis in 48.1 %, grade 2 in 44.5 % and grade 3 in 17 patients 4.7 %, respectively. After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, in 308 cases (86.6 %) there was no chronic skin or subcutaneous changes. In the first consecutive 50 patients, measures with skin tester showed no statistical differences in parameters for skin and subcutaneous fibrosis. Cosmetic results were considered excellent and good in 26 and 62 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Boost to tumour bed with hypofractionated doses is well tolerated and acute and chronic toxicities are mild with good cosmetic results. Objective systems are encouraging methods to assess skin quality and cosmesis.
Authors: José Luis Guinot; M Isabel Tortajada; María Carrascosa; Vicente Crispín; Ana Otero; Belén Ríos; Eleonor Rivin; Miguel Santos; Pablo Soler; Leoncio Arribas Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Patricia J A M Brouwers; Erik van Werkhoven; Harry Bartelink; Alain Fourquet; Claire Lemanski; Judith van Loon; John H Maduro; Nicola S Russell; Luc J E E Scheijmans; Dominic A X Schinagl; Antonia H Westenberg; Philip Poortmans; Liesbeth J Boersma Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: C Vrieling; L Collette; E Bartelink; J H Borger; S J Brenninkmeyer; J C Horiot; M Pierart; P M Poortmans; H Struikmans; E Van der Schueren; J A Van Dongen; E Van Limbergen; H Bartelink Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Soren M Bentzen; Candace R Correa; Carol A Hahn; Patricia H Hardenbergh; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Beryl McCormick; Julie R McQueen; Lori J Pierce; Simon N Powell; Abram Recht; Alphonse G Taghian; Frank A Vicini; Julia R White; Bruce G Haffty Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David J Sher; Eve Wittenberg; Alphonse G Taghian; Jennifer R Bellon; Rinaa S Punglia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joanne S Haviland; J Roger Owen; John A Dewar; Rajiv K Agrawal; Jane Barrett; Peter J Barrett-Lee; H Jane Dobbs; Penelope Hopwood; Pat A Lawton; Brian J Magee; Judith Mills; Sandra Simmons; Mark A Sydenham; Karen Venables; Judith M Bliss; John R Yarnold Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Javier Sanz; Min Zhao; Nuria Rodríguez; Raquel Granado; Palmira Foro; Ana Reig; Ismael Membrive; Manuel Algara Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.411