Icro Meattini1, Calogero Saieva2, Guido Miccinesi3, Isacco Desideri4, Giulio Francolini4, Vieri Scotti4, Livia Marrazzo5, Stefania Pallotta5, Fiammetta Meacci4, Cristina Muntoni4, Benedetta Bendinelli2, Luis Jose Sanchez6, Marco Bernini6, Lorenzo Orzalesi6, Jacopo Nori7, Simonetta Bianchi8, Lorenzo Livi4. 1. Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Italy. Electronic address: icro.meattini@unifi.it. 2. Cancer Risk Factors and Lifestyle Epidemiology Unit, ISPO (Cancer Research and Prevention Institute), Italy. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, ISPO (Cancer Research and Prevention Institute), Italy. 4. Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Italy. 5. Medical Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Italy. 6. Breast Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Italy. 7. Radiology Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Italy. 8. Pathology Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) represents a valid option for selected early breast cancer (BC). We recently published the 5-year results of the APBI-IMRT-Florence phase 3 randomised trial (NCT02104895), showing a very low rate of disease failure, with acute and early-late toxicity in favour of APBI. We present the early and 2-year follow-up health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results. METHODS:Eligible patients were women aged more than 40 years with early BC suitable for breast-conserving surgery. APBI consisted of 30 Gy in five fractions delivered with IMRT technique. Standard whole breast irradiation (WBI) consisted of 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus a 10 Gy in five fractions boost on tumour bed. A total of 520 patients were enrolled in the phase 3 trial. Overall, 205 patients (105 APBI and 100 WBI) fully completed all the given questionnaires and were therefore included in the present analysis. As HRQoL assessment, patients were asked to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, and the BR23 questionnaires at the beginning (T0), at the end (T1) and after 2 years from radiation (T2). FINDINGS: No significant difference between the two arms at QLQ-C30 and BR23 scores emerged at T0. Global health status (p = 0.0001), and most scores of the functional and symptom scales of QLQ-C30 at T1 showed significant differences in favour of the APBI arm. Concerning the BR23 functional and symptom scales, the body image perception, future perspective and breast and arm symptoms were significantly better in the APBI group. Similar significant results emerged at T2: significant differences in favour of APBI emerged for GHS (p = 0.0001), and most functional and symptom QLQ-C30 scales. According to QLQ-BR23 module, among the functional scales, the body image perception and the future perspective were significantly better in the APBI group (p = 0.0001), whereas among the symptom scales significant difference emerged by breast and arm symptoms with better outcomes in APBI arm (p < 0.01). INTERPRETATION: Early BC treated with APBI showed an improved short-term, and 2-year follow-up HRQoL outcome as compared with WBI. Early BC treated with APBI showed an improved short-term, and 2-year follow-up HRQoL outcome as compared with WBI. APBI should be strongly considered in the treatment choice for selected low-risk patients. Mature local control results from ongoing adequately powered randomised trials are awaited.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) represents a valid option for selected early breast cancer (BC). We recently published the 5-year results of the APBI-IMRT-Florence phase 3 randomised trial (NCT02104895), showing a very low rate of disease failure, with acute and early-late toxicity in favour of APBI. We present the early and 2-year follow-up health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results. METHODS: Eligible patients were women aged more than 40 years with early BC suitable for breast-conserving surgery. APBI consisted of 30 Gy in five fractions delivered with IMRT technique. Standard whole breast irradiation (WBI) consisted of 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus a 10 Gy in five fractions boost on tumour bed. A total of 520 patients were enrolled in the phase 3 trial. Overall, 205 patients (105 APBI and 100 WBI) fully completed all the given questionnaires and were therefore included in the present analysis. As HRQoL assessment, patients were asked to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, and the BR23 questionnaires at the beginning (T0), at the end (T1) and after 2 years from radiation (T2). FINDINGS: No significant difference between the two arms at QLQ-C30 and BR23 scores emerged at T0. Global health status (p = 0.0001), and most scores of the functional and symptom scales of QLQ-C30 at T1 showed significant differences in favour of the APBI arm. Concerning the BR23 functional and symptom scales, the body image perception, future perspective and breast and arm symptoms were significantly better in the APBI group. Similar significant results emerged at T2: significant differences in favour of APBI emerged for GHS (p = 0.0001), and most functional and symptom QLQ-C30 scales. According to QLQ-BR23 module, among the functional scales, the body image perception and the future perspective were significantly better in the APBI group (p = 0.0001), whereas among the symptom scales significant difference emerged by breast and arm symptoms with better outcomes in APBI arm (p < 0.01). INTERPRETATION: Early BC treated with APBI showed an improved short-term, and 2-year follow-up HRQoL outcome as compared with WBI. Early BC treated with APBI showed an improved short-term, and 2-year follow-up HRQoL outcome as compared with WBI. APBI should be strongly considered in the treatment choice for selected low-risk patients. Mature local control results from ongoing adequately powered randomised trials are awaited.
Authors: Krishan R Jethwa; Sean S Park; Karthik Gonuguntla; Stephanie M Wick; Laura A Vallow; Christopher L Deufel; Thomas J Whitaker; Keith M Furutani; Kathryn J Ruddy; Kimberly S Corbin; Tina J Hieken; Robert W Mutter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pierfrancesco Franco; Giuseppe Carlo Iorio; Sara Bartoncini; Mario Airoldi; Corrado De Sanctis; Isabella Castellano; Umberto Ricardi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Chirag Shah; Martin Keisch; Atif Khan; Douglas Arthur; David Wazer; Frank Vicini Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Courtney M Lattimore; Max O Meneveau; Gina R Petroni; Nikole E Varhegyi; Gabriella C Squeo; Timothy N Showalter; Shayna L Showalter Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 2.441
Authors: Indrani S Bhattacharya; Joanne S Haviland; Anna M Kirby; Cliona C Kirwan; Penelope Hopwood; John R Yarnold; Judith M Bliss; Charlotte E Coles Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tobias Forster; Clara Victoria Katharina Köhler; Jürgen Debus; Juliane Hörner-Rieber Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 2.860