Search

Purpose: Second conservative treatment has emerged as an option for patients with a second ipsilateral breast tumor event after conserving surgery and breast irradiation. We aimed to address the lack of evidence regarding second breast event treatment by comparing oncologic outcomes after conservative treatment or mastectomy., Methods and Materials: Oncologic outcomes were analyzed using a propensity score-matched cohort analysis study on patients who received a diagnosis of a second breast event between January 1995 and June 2017. Patient data were collected from 15 hospitals/cancer centers in 7 European countries. Patients were offered mastectomy or lumpectomy plus brachytherapy. Propensity scores were calculated with logistic regression and multiple imputations. Matching (1:1) was achieved using the nearest neighbor method, including 10 clinical/pathologic data related to the second breast event. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival from the salvage surgery date. Secondary endpoints were 5-year cumulative incidence of third breast event, regional relapse and distant metastasis, and disease-free and specific survival. Complications and 5-year incidence of mastectomy were investigated in the conservative treatment cohort., Results: Among the 1327 analyzed patients (mastectomy, 945; conservative treatment, 382), 754 were matched by propensity score (mastectomy, 377; conservative treatment, 377). The median follow-up was 75.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.4-83.3) and 73.8 months (95% CI, 67.5-80.8) for mastectomy and conservative treatment, respectively (P = .9). In the matched analyses, no differences in 5-year overall survival and cumulative incidence of third breast event were noted between mastectomy and conservative treatment (88% [95% CI, 83.0-90.8] vs 87% [95% CI, 82.1-90.2], P = .6 and 2.3% [95% CI, 0.7-3.9] vs 2.8% [95% CI, 0.8-4.7], P = .4, respectively). Similarly, no differences were observed for all secondary endpoints. Five-year cumulative incidence of mastectomy was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.0-5.1)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest matched analysis of mastectomy and conservative treatment combining lumpectomy with brachytherapy for second breast events. Compared with mastectomy, conservative treatment does not appear to be associated with any differences in terms of oncologic outcome. Consequently, conservative treatment could be considered a viable option for salvage treatment., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The use of pelvic radiation for patients with a high risk of lymph node (LN) metastasis (>15%) remains controversial. We reviewed the data at three institutions treating patients with a combination of external-beam radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy to address the prognostic implications of the use of the Roach formula and the benefit of pelvic treatment., Methods and Materials: From 1986 to 2003, 1,491 patients were treated with external-beam radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. The Roach formula [2/3 prostate-specific antigen + (Gleason score -6) x 10] could be calculated for 1,357 patients. Group I consisted of patients having a risk of positive LN < or = 15% (n = 761), Group II had a risk >15% and < or = 30% (n = 422), and Group III had a risk of LN disease >30% (n = 174). A >15% risk of having positive LN was found in 596 patients and was used to determine the benefit of pelvic radiation. The pelvis was treated at two of the cancer centers (n = 312), whereas at the third center (n = 284) radiation therapy was delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles alone. Average biologic effective dose was > or = 100 Gy (alphabeta = 1.2). Biochemical failure was as per the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition. Statistics included the log-rank test as well as Cox univariate and multivariate analysis., Results: For all 596 patients with a positive LN risk >15%, median follow-up was 4.3 years, with a mean of 4.8 years. For all cases, median follow-up was 4 years and mean follow-up was 4.4 years. Five-year results for the three groups based on their risk of positive LN were significantly different in terms of biochemical failure (p < 0.001), clinical control (p < 0.001), disease-free survival excluding biochemical failure (p < 0.001), cause-specific survival (p < 0.001), and overall survival (p < 0.001). For all patients with a risk of positive LN >15% (n = 596), Group II (>15-30% risk), or Group III (>30% risk), no benefit was seen in the 5-year rates of clinical failure, cause-specific survival, or overall survival with pelvic radiation. In the Cox multivariate analysis for cause-specific survival, Gleason score (p = 0.009, hazard ratio [HR] 3.1), T stage (p = 0.03, HR 1.8), and year of treatment (p = 0.05, HR 1.1) were significant. A log-rank test for cause-specific survival for all patients (n = 577) by the use of pelvic radiation was not significant (p = 0.99) accounting for high-dose-rate brachytherapy dose, neoadjuvant hormones, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, T stage, and year of treatment as covariates., Conclusions: The use of the Roach formula to stratify patients for clinical and biochemical outcomes is excellent. Pelvic radiation added to high prostate radiation doses did not show a clinical benefit for patients at a high risk of pelvic LN disease (>15%) selected using the Roach formula.

Purpose: High-dose radiotherapy, delivered in an accelerated hypofractionated course, was utilized to treat prostate cancer. Therapy consisted of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided conformally modulated high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. The purpose of this report is (1) to assess long-term comparative outcomes from three trials using similar accelerated hypofractionated regimes; and (2) to examine the long-term survival impact of a short course of < or =6 months adjuvant/concurrent androgen deprivation when a very high radiation dose was delivered., Methods and Materials: Between 1986 and 2000, 1,260 patients were treated at three institutions with pelvic EBRT (36-50 Gy) integrated with HDR prostate brachytherapy. The total dose including brachytherapy was given over 5 weeks. The biologic equivalent EBRT dose ranged between 90 and 123 Gy (median, 102 Gy) using an alpha /beta of 1.2. Patient eligibility criteria included a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen > or =10, Gleason score > or =7, or clinical stage > or =T2b. A total of 1,260 patients were treated, and 934 meet the criteria. Kiel University Hospital treated 198 patients; William Beaumont Hospital, 315; and California Endocurietherapy Cancer Center, 459 patients. Brachytherapy dose regimes were somewhat different between centers and the dose was escalated from 5.5 x 3 to 15 Gy x 2 Gy. Patients were divided for analysis between the 406 who received up to 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy and the 528 patients who did not. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 18 months (3 times the exposure to androgen deprivation therapy). The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology biochemical failure definition was used., Results: Mean age was 69 years. Median follow-up time was 4.4 years (range, 1.5-14.5); 4 years for androgen deprivation therapy patients and 4.9 for radiation alone. There was no difference at 5 and 8 years in overall survival, cause-specific survival, or biochemical control among the three institutions. The corresponding 8-year rates with and without androgen deprivation therapy were biochemical control 85% and 81%; overall survival 83% and 78%; cause-specific survival 89% and 94%; and metastatic rates of 16.6% and 7.3%. A multivariate analysis revealed androgen deprivation therapy did not predict for biochemical failure for either the entire group or the subset of 177 patients harboring all three poor prognostic factors. Moreover, adding androgen deprivation therapy strongly correlated with higher rates of both metastasis (p = 0.09; hazard ratio, 2.08) and cancer-related deaths (p = 0.02, hazard ratio 3.25). These negative results for the most unfavorable group led us to question if androgen deprivation therapy might have a deleterious impact through delay in delivery of the potentially curative radiation or whether there may be a biologic basis by fixing the cycling cells in G0., Conclusions: Accelerated hypofractionated pelvic EBRT integrated with TRUS-guided conformally modulated HDR administered to 1,260 patients in three institutions was an excellent method of delivering very high radiation dose to the prostate in 5 weeks. Similar high overall, cause-specific, and biochemical no evidence of disease survival rates achieved show that prostate HDR can be successfully delivered in academic and community settings. At 8 years, the addition of a course of < or =6 months of neoadjuvant/concurrent androgen deprivation therapy to a very high radiation dose did not confer a therapeutic advantage but added side effects and cost. Furthermore, for the most unfavorable group, there was a higher rate of distant metastasis and more prostate cancer-related deaths. We question the value of a short course of androgen deprivation therapy when used with high-dose radiation.