T A Koulis1,2,3, A Dang4, C Speers5, R A Olson1,2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer-Centre for the North, Prince George, BC. 2. Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 3. Current address: Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer-Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, BC. 4. University of British Columbia School of Medicine, Prince George, BC. 5. BC Cancer, Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC.
Abstract
Background: Radiation therapy (rt) after mastectomy for breast cancer can improve survival outcomes, but has been associated with inferior cosmesis after breast reconstruction. In the literature, rt dose and fractionation schedules are inconsistently reported. We sought to determine the pattern of rt prescribing practices in a provincial rt program for patients treated with mastectomy and reconstruction. Methods: Women diagnosed with stages 0-iii breast cancer between January 2012 and December 2013 and treated with curative-intent rt were identified from a clinicopathology database. Patient demographic, tumour, and treatment information were extracted. Of the identified patients, those undergoing mastectomy were the focus of the present analysis. Results: Of 4016 patients identified, 1143 (28%) underwent mastectomy. The patients treated with mastectomy had a median age of 57 years, and 37% of them underwent reconstruction. Treatment with more than 16 fractions of rt was associated with autologous reconstruction [odds ratio (or): 37.2; 95% confidence interval (ci): 11.2 to 123.7; p < 0.001], implant reconstruction (or: 93.3; 95% ci: 45.3 to 192.2; p < 0.001), and treating centre. Hypofractionated treatment was associated with older age (or: 0.94; 95% ci: 0.92 to 0.96; p < 0.001), and living more than 400 km from a treatment centre (or: 0.37; 95% ci: 0.16 to 0.86; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Prescribing practices in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy are influenced by reconstruction intent, age, nodal status, and distance from the treatment centre. Those factors should be considered when making treatment decisions.
Background: Radiation therapy (rt) after mastectomy for breast cancer can improve survival outcomes, but has been associated with inferior cosmesis after breast reconstruction. In the literature, rt dose and fractionation schedules are inconsistently reported. We sought to determine the pattern of rt prescribing practices in a provincial rt program for patients treated with mastectomy and reconstruction. Methods:Women diagnosed with stages 0-iii breast cancer between January 2012 and December 2013 and treated with curative-intent rt were identified from a clinicopathology database. Patient demographic, tumour, and treatment information were extracted. Of the identified patients, those undergoing mastectomy were the focus of the present analysis. Results: Of 4016 patients identified, 1143 (28%) underwent mastectomy. The patients treated with mastectomy had a median age of 57 years, and 37% of them underwent reconstruction. Treatment with more than 16 fractions of rt was associated with autologous reconstruction [odds ratio (or): 37.2; 95% confidence interval (ci): 11.2 to 123.7; p < 0.001], implant reconstruction (or: 93.3; 95% ci: 45.3 to 192.2; p < 0.001), and treating centre. Hypofractionated treatment was associated with older age (or: 0.94; 95% ci: 0.92 to 0.96; p < 0.001), and living more than 400 km from a treatment centre (or: 0.37; 95% ci: 0.16 to 0.86; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Prescribing practices in breast cancerpatients undergoing mastectomy are influenced by reconstruction intent, age, nodal status, and distance from the treatment centre. Those factors should be considered when making treatment decisions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; fractionation; mastectomy; radiation therapy; reconstruction
Authors: J Ragaz; S M Jackson; N Le; I H Plenderleith; J J Spinelli; V E Basco; K S Wilson; M A Knowling; C M Coppin; M Paradis; A J Coldman; I A Olivotto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Timothy J Whelan; Ivo A Olivotto; Wendy R Parulekar; Ida Ackerman; Boon H Chua; Abdenour Nabid; Katherine A Vallis; Julia R White; Pierre Rousseau; Andre Fortin; Lori J Pierce; Lee Manchul; Susan Chafe; Maureen C Nolan; Peter Craighead; Julie Bowen; David R McCready; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Gelmon; Yvonne Murray; Judy-Anne W Chapman; Bingshu E Chen; Mark N Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip M Poortmans; Sandra Collette; Carine Kirkove; Erik Van Limbergen; Volker Budach; Henk Struikmans; Laurence Collette; Alain Fourquet; Philippe Maingon; Mariacarla Valli; Karin De Winter; Simone Marnitz; Isabelle Barillot; Luciano Scandolaro; Ernest Vonk; Carla Rodenhuis; Hugo Marsiglia; Nicola Weidner; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Christoph Glanzmann; Abraham Kuten; Rodrigo Arriagada; Harry Bartelink; Walter Van den Bogaert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jigna Desai Jhaveri; Stephen C Rush; Karen Kostroff; Dwight Derisi; Leonard A Farber; Virginia E Maurer; Jay L Bosworth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 7.038