Jay P Reddy1, Xiudong Lei2, Sheng-Cheng Huang3, Krista M Nicklaus3, Michelle C Fingeret4, Simona F Shaitelman1, Kelly K Hunt5, Thomas A Buchholz1, Fatima Merchant6, Mia K Markey7, Benjamin D Smith8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. 4. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Engineering Technology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, Texas; Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: bsmith3@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure, by quantitative analysis of digital photographs, breast cosmetic outcome within the setting of a randomized trial of conventionally fractionated (CF) and hypofractionated (HF) whole-breast irradiation (WBI), to identify how quantitative cosmesis metrics were associated with patient- and physician-reported cosmesis and whether they differed by treatment arm. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2011 to 2014, 287 women aged ≥40 with ductal carcinoma in situ or early invasive breast cancer were randomized to HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fractions [fx] + 10-12.5 Gy/4-5 fx boost) or CF-WBI (50 Gy/25 fx + 10-14 Gy/5-7 fx). At 1 year after treatment we collected digital photographs, patient-reported cosmesis using the Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes Scale, and physician-reported cosmesis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Six quantitative measures of breast symmetry, labeled M1-M6, were calculated from anteroposterior digital photographs. For each measure, values closer to 1 imply greater symmetry, and values closer to 0 imply greater asymmetry. Associations between M1-M6 and patient- and physician-reported cosmesis and treatment arm were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Among 245 evaluable patients, patient-reported cosmesis was strongly associated with M1 (vertical symmetry measure) (P<.01). Physician-reported cosmesis was similarly correlated with M1 (P<.01) and also with M2 (vertical symmetry, P=.01) and M4 (horizontal symmetry, P=.03). At 1 year after treatment, HF-WBI resulted in better values of M2 (P=.02) and M3 (P<.01) than CF-WBI; treatment arm was not significantly associated with M1, M4, M5, or M6 (P≥.12). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative assessment of breast photographs reveals similar to improved cosmetic outcome with HF-WBI compared with CF-WBI 1 year after treatment. Assessing cosmetic outcome using these measures could be useful for future comparative effectiveness studies and outcome reporting.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To measure, by quantitative analysis of digital photographs, breast cosmetic outcome within the setting of a randomized trial of conventionally fractionated (CF) and hypofractionated (HF) whole-breast irradiation (WBI), to identify how quantitative cosmesis metrics were associated with patient- and physician-reported cosmesis and whether they differed by treatment arm. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2011 to 2014, 287 women aged ≥40 with ductal carcinoma in situ or early invasive breast cancer were randomized to HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fractions [fx] + 10-12.5 Gy/4-5 fx boost) or CF-WBI (50 Gy/25 fx + 10-14 Gy/5-7 fx). At 1 year after treatment we collected digital photographs, patient-reported cosmesis using the Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes Scale, and physician-reported cosmesis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Six quantitative measures of breast symmetry, labeled M1-M6, were calculated from anteroposterior digital photographs. For each measure, values closer to 1 imply greater symmetry, and values closer to 0 imply greater asymmetry. Associations between M1-M6 and patient- and physician-reported cosmesis and treatment arm were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Among 245 evaluable patients, patient-reported cosmesis was strongly associated with M1 (vertical symmetry measure) (P<.01). Physician-reported cosmesis was similarly correlated with M1 (P<.01) and also with M2 (vertical symmetry, P=.01) and M4 (horizontal symmetry, P=.03). At 1 year after treatment, HF-WBI resulted in better values of M2 (P=.02) and M3 (P<.01) than CF-WBI; treatment arm was not significantly associated with M1, M4, M5, or M6 (P≥.12). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative assessment of breast photographs reveals similar to improved cosmetic outcome with HF-WBI compared with CF-WBI 1 year after treatment. Assessing cosmetic outcome using these measures could be useful for future comparative effectiveness studies and outcome reporting.
Authors: Oren M Tepper; Jacob G Unger; Kevin H Small; Daniel Feldman; Naveen Kumar; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Ivo A Olivotto; Timothy J Whelan; Sameer Parpia; Do-Hoon Kim; Tanya Berrang; Pauline T Truong; Iwa Kong; Brandy Cochrane; Alan Nichol; Isabelle Roy; Isabelle Germain; Mohamed Akra; Melanie Reed; Anthony Fyles; Theresa Trotter; Francisco Perera; Wayne Beckham; Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cameron W Swanick; Xiudong Lei; Simona F Shaitelman; Pamela J Schlembach; Elizabeth S Bloom; Michelle C Fingeret; Eric A Strom; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Michael C Stauder; Tomas Dvorak; Alastair M Thompson; Thomas A Buchholz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Joerg Heil; Julia Dahlkamp; Michael Golatta; Joachim Rom; Christoph Domschke; Geraldine Rauch; Maria Joao Cardoso; Christof Sohn Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Timothy Whelan; Robert MacKenzie; Jim Julian; Mark Levine; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Barbara Lada; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ethan Laukkanen; Sunil Gulavita; Veronique Benk; Barbara Szechtman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
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: S Darby; P McGale; C Correa; C Taylor; R Arriagada; M Clarke; D Cutter; C Davies; M Ewertz; J Godwin; R Gray; L Pierce; T Whelan; Y Wang; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: My Pham; Robert Alzul; Elisabeth Elder; James French; Jaime Cardoso; Ahmad Kaviani; Farid Meybodi Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Bhavana V Chapman; Xiudong Lei; Prithvi Patil; Shikha Tripathi; Krista M Nicklaus; Aaron J Grossberg; Simona F Shaitelman; Alastair M Thompson; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Fatima Merchant; Mia K Markey; Benjamin D Smith; Jay P Reddy Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-21
Authors: Xiao Xu; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; Shi-Yi Wang; Craig Evan Pollack; Suzanne B Evans; James B Yu; Cary P Gross Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Audrey L Cheong; Jun Liu; Gregory P Reece; Krista M Nicklaus; Mary Catherine Bordes; Summer E Hanson; Mia K Markey; Fatima A Merchant Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-07-26