K J Borm1, K Kessel2, M Devecka2, S Muench2, C Straube2,3, K Schiller2, L Schüttrumpf2, H Dapper2, B Wöller2, S Pigorsch2,3, S E Combs2,3,4. 1. Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. kai.borm@mri.tum.de. 2. Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK)-Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lymph node irradiation in breast cancer has gained complexity due to recently published studies and technical innovations which then led to changes in international guidelines. We sought to determine real-time variability in lymph node irradiation in clinical practice in German-speaking countries. METHODS: The Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), developed an online-based questionnaire focusing on the indication, target definition, and treatment technique of lymph node irradiation in patients with breast cancer. The invitation to participate in the survey was sent to members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) by e‑mail. The results of the survey were exported from the online platform into SPSS for a detailed analysis. RESULTS: In total, 100 physicians completed the questionnaire between 05/2019 and 06/2019. Despite the existence of several treatment and contouring guidelines, we observed large variability of lymph node irradiation: The guideline recommendation for internal mammary irradiation is not consistently implemented in clinical practice and irradiation of the axilla after positive SLNB (sentinel lymph node biopsy) or ALND (axillary lymph node dissection) is handled very differently. Furthermore, in most clinics, the ESTRO (European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology) contouring consensus is not used, and PTV (planning target volume) definitions and margins vary considerably. CONCLUSION: Further clinical studies should be performed with a particular focus on radiotherapy for lymphatic drainage to support and amend the existing guidelines. These studies should establish a more standardized treatment of the lymph node regions in clinical practice. Quality assurance should enforce broad implementation of consensus recommendations.
PURPOSE: Lymph node irradiation in breast cancer has gained complexity due to recently published studies and technical innovations which then led to changes in international guidelines. We sought to determine real-time variability in lymph node irradiation in clinical practice in German-speaking countries. METHODS: The Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), developed an online-based questionnaire focusing on the indication, target definition, and treatment technique of lymph node irradiation in patients with breast cancer. The invitation to participate in the survey was sent to members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) by e‑mail. The results of the survey were exported from the online platform into SPSS for a detailed analysis. RESULTS: In total, 100 physicians completed the questionnaire between 05/2019 and 06/2019. Despite the existence of several treatment and contouring guidelines, we observed large variability of lymph node irradiation: The guideline recommendation for internal mammary irradiation is not consistently implemented in clinical practice and irradiation of the axilla after positive SLNB (sentinel lymph node biopsy) or ALND (axillary lymph node dissection) is handled very differently. Furthermore, in most clinics, the ESTRO (European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology) contouring consensus is not used, and PTV (planning target volume) definitions and margins vary considerably. CONCLUSION: Further clinical studies should be performed with a particular focus on radiotherapy for lymphatic drainage to support and amend the existing guidelines. These studies should establish a more standardized treatment of the lymph node regions in clinical practice. Quality assurance should enforce broad implementation of consensus recommendations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Lymph node irradiation; Patterns of care; Survey; Variability
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Manjeet Chadha; Janaki Moni; Karla Ballman; Fran Laurie; Thomas A Buchholz; Armando Giuliano; Bruce G Haffty Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M-L Sautter-Bihl; F Sedlmayer; W Budach; J Dunst; P Feyer; R Fietkau; C Fussl; W Haase; W Harms; M D Piroth; R Souchon; F Wenz; R Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Mila Donker; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Luigi Cataliotti; A Helen Westenberg; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Willem H Bouma; Huub C J van der Mijle; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Sanne C Veltkamp; Leen Slaets; Nicole J Duez; Peter W de Graaf; Thijs van Dalen; Andreas Marinelli; Herman Rijna; Marko Snoj; Nigel J Bundred; Jos W S Merkus; Yazid Belkacemi; Patrick Petignat; Dominic A X Schinagl; Corneel Coens; Carlo G M Messina; Jan Bogaerts; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kai Joachim Borm; Julia Voppichler; Mathias Düsberg; Markus Oechsner; Tibor Vag; Wolfgang Weber; Stephanie Elisabeth Combs; Marciana Nona Duma Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Armando E Giuliano; Karla V Ballman; Linda McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Meghan B Brennan; Pond R Kelemen; David W Ollila; Nora M Hansen; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Ranger; A Dunlop; K Hutchinson; H Convery; M K Maclennan; H Chantler; N Twyman; C Rose; D McQuaid; R A Amos; C Griffin; N M deSouza; E Donovan; E Harris; C E Coles; A Kirby Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: F Sedlmayer; M-L Sautter-Bihl; W Budach; J Dunst; G Fastner; P Feyer; R Fietkau; W Haase; W Harms; R Souchon; F Wenz; R Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Marc D Piroth; René Baumann; Wilfried Budach; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Thomas Hehr; David Krug; Arnd Röser; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Frederik Wenz; Rolf Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 3.621