Search

Purpose: The optimal approach for partial breast irradiation (PBI) is unknown. We investigated a novel de-intensified 3-fraction PBI regimen for photons, protons, and brachytherapy., Methods and Materials: A multicenter nonrandomized controlled trial with the primary outcome of adverse cosmesis at 3 years versus before PBI. Eligibility criteria were age ≥50 years treated with breast-conserving surgery for node-negative estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) invasive breast cancer or any ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) measuring ≤2.5 cm. Photon and proton PBI were prescribed 21.9 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and brachytherapy 21 Gy in 3 fractions. Radiation therapy technique and adjuvant endocrine therapy were selected at physician and patient discretion., Results: Between June 17, 2015, and July 13, 2017, 161 eligible patients were treated with photons (56), protons (49), or brachytherapy (56). Median patient age was 66.8 years. One hundred twenty-six (78.3%) had invasive breast cancer (all ER+) and 35 (21.7%) had DCIS (88.6% ER+). Fifty-four percent of patients with invasive breast cancer and 25.8% of patients with ER+ DCIS initiated and adhered to the prescribed endocrine therapy. The proportion of patients with adverse cosmesis (by trained nurse assessment) was 14.5% at baseline and 2.3% at 3 years (difference, -12.2%; 95% CI, -100% to -6.4%). Adverse cosmesis at the last follow-up, with a median follow-up of 5 years, was 5.7% by nurse assessment, 5.6% by panel assessment of digital photographs, and 5.2% by patient self-report. There were no observed clinically meaningful changes in other patient-reported outcomes, and just 2 grade 2 or higher adverse events, both grade 2, in the brachytherapy cohort. Five-year local recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival were 98.0% and 95.5%, respectively. There were no local recurrences among 60 patients with invasive breast cancer and Ki67 ≤13.25%., Conclusions: Deintensified 3-day PBI provided favorable disease control, tolerability, and cosmetic outcomes, meeting the prespecified criteria for acceptability. This approach is an attractive option for patients with small node-negative ER+ breast cancer and DCIS., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: NRG Oncology NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 compared whole-breast irradiation (WBI) to accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI). APBI was not equivalent to WBI in local tumor control. Secondary outcome was quality of life (QOL)., Methods: The QOL sub-study used validated self-report questionnaires, including the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) vitality scale. Assessments occurred before random assignment, at treatment completion (chemotherapy or radiotherapy), 4 weeks later, at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Primary aims: cosmesis change equivalency (baseline to 3 years; a priori margin of equivalence 0.4 standard deviations) and fatigue change superiority (baseline to end of treatment [EOT]) for APBI vs WBI, by patient groups treated with or without chemotherapy when appropriate., Results: From March 21, 2005 to May 25, 2009, 975 patients enrolled in this sub-study; 950 had follow-up data. APBI had 3-year cosmesis equivalent to WBI (95% CI = -0.0001 to -0.16; equivalence margin -0.22 to -0.22) in all patients. The APBI group without chemotherapy had less EOT fatigue (P = .011; mean score APBI 63 vs WBI 59); the APBI group receiving chemotherapy had worse EOT fatigue (P = .011; APBI 43 vs WBI 49). The APBI group reported less pain (BCTOS) at EOT (WBI 2.29 vs APBI 1.97) but worse pain at 3 years (WBI 1.62 vs APBI 1.71). APBI patients reported greater convenience of care than with WBI and reported less symptom severity at EOT and 4 weeks later., Conclusion: Cosmetic outcomes were similar for the APBI and WBI groups, with small statistically significant differences in other outcomes that varied over time. Differences in fatigue and other symptoms appeared to resolve by ≥6 months. APBI may be preferred by some patients, for whom extended treatment is burdensome., Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00103181., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) has been proposed to decrease lymphedema rates. The primary aim of our study was to determine whether ILR decreased the incidence of lymphedema in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)., Methods: We conducted a two-site pragmatic study of ALND with or without ILR, employing surgeon-level cohort assignment, based on breast surgeons' preferred standard practice. Lymphedema was assessed by limb volume measurements, patient self-reporting, provider documentation, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes., Results: Overall, 230 patients with breast cancer were enrolled; on an intention-to-treat basis, 99 underwent ALND and 131 underwent ALND with ILR. Of the 131 patients preoperatively planned for ILR, 115 (87.8%) underwent ILR; 72 (62.6%) were performed by one breast surgical oncologist and 43 (37.4%) by fellowship-trained microvascular plastic surgeons. ILR was associated with an increased risk of lymphedema when defined as ≥10% limb volume change on univariable analysis, but not on multivariable analysis, after propensity score adjustment. We did not find a statistically significant difference in limb volume measurements between the two cohorts when including subclinical lymphedema (≥5% inter-limb volume change), nor did we see a difference in grade between the two cohorts on an intent-to-treat or treatment received basis. For all patients, considering ascertainment strategies of patient self-reporting, provider documentation, and ICD-10 codes, as a single binary outcome measure, there was no significant difference in lymphedema rates between those undergoing ILR or not., Conclusion: We found no significant difference in lymphedema rates between patients undergoing ALND with or without ILR., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Purpose: Our aim was to report physician- and patient-reported outcomes of patients with localized breast cancer treated with moderate versus ultrahypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS)., Methods and Materials: Between February 2018 and February 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (pT0-3 pN0-1 M0) were offered participation in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing adjuvant moderate hypofractionation (MHF) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions versus ultrahypofractionation (UHF) to 25 Gy in 5 fractions after BCS, with an optional simultaneously integrated boost. Toxicities, cosmesis, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years from irradiation using validated metric tools., Results: One hundred seven patients were randomized to MHF (n = 54) or UHF (n = 53) adjuvant WBI. The median follow-up was 42.8 months. Grade 2 radiation dermatitis was experienced by 4 patients (7.4%) in the MHF arm and 2 patients (3.7%) in the UHF arm at EOT (P = .726). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. Deterioration of cosmesis by physician assessment was observed in 2 (6.7%) patients treated in the UHF arm and 1 (1.9%) patient treated in the MHF arm at EOT (P = .534), whereas at 3 months, only 1 (1.8%) patient treated in the MHF arm demonstrated deterioration of cosmesis (P = .315). At EOT, 91% and 94% of patients reported excellent/good cosmesis among those treated with MHF and UHF regimens, respectively (P = .550). At 3 months, more patients within the MHF arm reported excellent/good cosmesis compared with those in the UHF arm (100% vs 91%; P = .030). However, the difference in patient-reported cosmesis disappeared at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year time points., Conclusions: UHF WBI showed similar treatment-related late toxicities and similar provider-scored cosmesis compared with MHF radiation in patients treated adjuvantly after BCS., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Compare overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) outcomes of breast conservative therapy (BCT) and mastectomy in a large cohort of patients with early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), using a propensity score-based matching approach., Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to study the role of RT in early stage TNBC. Primary end points were OS and BCSS. Cox proportional hazard regression models and Kaplan-Meier plots were used to generate the desired outcomes. Propensity score matching was done to minimize bias., Results: 12,761 patients with T1-2N0M0 TNBC as their first malignancy were retrieved. Of these 7237 had lumpectomy with RT, and 5524 had mastectomy only. Age, race, marital status, tumor laterality, grade and stage, and receipt of chemotherapy were prognostic variables for OS and BCSS. Among 4848 matched subjects, the 5-year OS was significantly higher in patients with lumpectomy and RT (89%) compared to mastectomy alone (84.5%) (p-value <0.001). Similarly, BCSS was significantly higher in patients with lumpectomy and RT (93%) compared to mastectomy alone (91%) (p-value <0.001). On subgroup analysis, patients who are younger than 40 had similar survival outcomes after either mastectomy alone or lumpectomy with RT. However, those who are older than 60, have any grade or T stage had better survival outcomes with lumpectomy and RT., Conclusions: Overall, lumpectomy followed by RT is associated with better OS and BCSS compared to mastectomy in T1-2N0M0 TNBC patients. Further research is needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy for specific patient subgroups., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: While the association between diagnosis of breast cancer and post-diagnosis psychological distress has been well documented, data regarding pre-diagnosis psychological distress in the breast cancer population are limited. Here, we assessed pre-diagnosis major life stressors and breast cancer outcomes, namely stage of disease and choice of surgery, in a single-center population., Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed clinical stage 0-3 breast cancer seen at Mayo Clinic Florida between June 11, 2018, and October 7, 2019, were administered voluntary telephone surveys to assess major life stressors during the 24 months preceding their cancer diagnosis. Subsequent clinical outcomes of cancer stage at diagnosis and surgical treatment were obtained through retrospective chart review. Study subjects who had experienced major life stressors and those who had not were compared using Chi-square tests., Results: Of 222 patients who were included, 51.3% reported experiencing a major life event before breast cancer diagnosis. 43.9% of these patients endorsed family-related stress. 21.1% had experienced multiple stressors. 1.8% described financial stress. Although more patients in the group with pre-diagnosis stress had carcinoma in situ (21.1% versus 13.0%, p = 0.11) and fewer had stage T1/T2 disease (64% versus 73.1%, p = 0.14) than in the group without stress, these differences were not statistically significant. More patients with pre-diagnosis stress chose mastectomy (34.2% versus 22.2%, p = 0.048)., Conclusions: Psychological distress is prevalent prior to breast cancer diagnosis and may merit early intervention. While additional study in diverse populations is needed, current data suggest possible associations between pre-diagnosis psychological distress and surgical decision making, specifically mastectomy.

The evidence supporting atlas based contour generation is growing and includes breast, prostate, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, and head and neck cancer patient populations. We sought to investigate atlas based segmentation (ABS) in patients with early stage breast cancer status post breast conserving surgery treated with adjuvant radiation therapy in the prone position. An initial atlas library was generated by uploading 20 previously treated patients. Subsequently, a group of 20 consecutive patients underwent treatment planning. Heart, right lung, left lung, total lungs, and breast clinical target volume (CTV) targets were manually contoured per our standard workflow. ABS was then incorporated into our radiation planning workflow and differences in contouring time were recorded, including time needed for ABS volume refinement. ABS generated volumes were compared subjectively in the unedited and edited stages by an independent radiation oncologist to reduce bias by incorporating an interobserver quality analysis. Various objective measurements were used to compare target volume quality including mean distance to agreement (MDA), Dice Coefficient (DC), logit transformation of DC (logit(DC)). The contouring physician edited 88.75% of organ at risk (OAR) volumes on average per patient, whereas the independent reviewing physician recommended revision of 27.5% OAR on average volumes per patient. CTV editing was performed in 20/20 (100%) of cases by the contouring physician, whereas CTV revision was recommended by the independent reviewing physician in 4/20 (20%) of cases. Our atlas performed well with DC values of >0.909 and logit(DC) of >2.344 across heart, lung, and breast volumes when compared to manually generated volumes. All objective measurements demonstrated improvement with physician refinement of ABS generated volumes. The largest absolute improvement was seen in the heart and breast CTV targets. There was 100% acceptance of the edited ABS generated volumes by the independent reviewing physician. The average time saved using ABS was 6.27 minutes (56.92%) per patient. This study confirms ABS offers improvements in efficiency without sacrificing contour quality in the early stage breast cancer patient population and demonstrates the functionality of ABS with prone patient positioning., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, with many efforts aimed at reducing acute and late toxicity given the generally favorable clinical outcomes with the current standard of care. Carbon ion radiation therapy is an emerging technique that may reduce dose to adjacent organs at risk while allowing dose escalation to the target. Given the efficacy of the standard treatments for breast cancer, there have been few prospective studies to date investigating carbon ion radiation therapy in breast cancer., Methods: PubMed/Medline, Ebsco, Cochrane, and Scopus were systematically reviewed using the search terms "carbon ion" and "breast" in November 2019. Out of the 76 articles screened, 26 articles were included., Results: This comprehensive review describes the physical and biological properties of carbon ion radiation therapy, with an emphasis on how these properties can be applied in the setting of breast cancer. Studies investigating the role of carbon ion radiation therapy in early stage breast cancers are reviewed. Additionally, the use of carbon ion radiation therapy in locally advanced disease, recurrent disease, and radiation-induced angiosarcoma are discussed., Conclusion: Although the data is limited, the early clinical results are promising. Further clinical trials are needed, especially in the setting of locally advanced and recurrent disease, to fully define the potential role of carbon ion radiation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

Background: Whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast-tumour recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. It is unknown whether accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) to only the tumour-bearing quadrant, which shortens treatment duration, is equally effective. In our trial, we investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lumpectomy compared with whole-breast irradiation., Methods: We did this randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial (NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413) in 154 clinical centres in the USA, Canada, Ireland, and Israel. Adult women (>18 years) with early-stage (0, I, or II; no evidence of distant metastases, but up to three axillary nodes could be positive) breast cancer (tumour size ≤3 cm; including all histologies and multifocal breast cancers), who had had lumpectomy with negative (ie, no detectable cancer cells) surgical margins, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a biased-coin-based minimisation algorithm to receive either whole-breast irradiation (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group). Whole-breast irradiation was delivered in 25 daily fractions of 50 Gy over 5 weeks, with or without a supplemental boost to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 34 Gy of brachytherapy or 38·5 Gy of external bream radiation therapy in 10 fractions, over 5 treatment days within an 8-day period. Randomisation was stratified by disease stage, menopausal status, hormone-receptor status, and intention to receive chemotherapy. Patients, investigators, and statisticians could not be masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of invasive and non-invasive IBTR as a first recurrence was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, excluding those patients who were lost to follow-up, with an equivalency test on the basis of a 50% margin increase in the hazard ratio (90% CI for the observed HR between 0·667 and 1·5 for equivalence) and a Cox proportional hazard model. Survival was assessed by intention to treat, and sensitivity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00103181., Findings: Between March 21, 2005, and April 16, 2013, 4216 women were enrolled. 2109 were assigned to the whole-breast irradiation group and 2107 were assigned to the APBI group. 70 patients from the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 from the APBI group withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up at this stage, so 2039 and 2093 patients respectively were available for survival analysis. Further, three and four patients respectively were lost to clinical follow-up (ie, survival status was assessed by phone but no physical examination was done), leaving 2036 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome. At a median follow-up of 10·2 years (IQR 7·5-11·5), 90 (4%) of 2089 women eligible for the primary outcome in the APBI group and 71 (3%) of 2036 women in the whole-breast irradiation group had an IBTR (HR 1·22, 90% CI 0·94-1·58). The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 4·6% (95% CI 3·7-5·7) in the APBI group versus 3·9% (3·1-5·0) in the whole-breast irradiation group. 44 (2%) of 2039 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 49 (2%) of 2093 patients in the APBI group died from recurring breast cancer. There were no treatment-related deaths. Second cancers and treatment-related toxicities were similar between the two groups. 2020 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in APBI group had available data on adverse events. The highest toxicity grade reported was: grade 1 in 845 (40%), grade 2 in 921 (44%), and grade 3 in 201 (10%) patients in the APBI group, compared with grade 1 in 626 (31%), grade 2 in 1193 (59%), and grade 3 in 143 (7%) in the whole-breast irradiation group., Interpretation: APBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to whole-breast irradiation in controlling IBTR for breast-conserving therapy. Our trial had broad eligibility criteria, leading to a large, heterogeneous pool of patients and sufficient power to detect treatment equivalence, but was not designed to test equivalence in patient subgroups or outcomes from different APBI techniques. For patients with early-stage breast cancer, our findings support whole-breast irradiation following lumpectomy; however, with an absolute difference of less than 1% in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some women., Funding: National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To report early adverse events and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of 3-fraction intracavitary catheter-based partial breast brachytherapy (ICBB)., Materials and Methods: Eligible women ≥50 years of age with ≤2.5-cm, lymph node-negative invasive or in situ breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery and placement of a brachytherapy applicator. ICBB was initiated on the second weekday after surgery and prescribed to 21 Gy in 3 once-daily fractions. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0; 10-point linear analog scale assessment; the PRO version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; and the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale were used for provider and patient-reported assessments., Results: Seventy-three women were treated for invasive (79%) or in situ (21%) breast cancer. The median time to completion of surgery and radiation therapy was 6 days. After 14-months median follow-up, 2 patients (3%) had developed breast infections that resolved with oral antibiotics. There was no other treatment-associated adverse event grade ≥2. The grade 1 seroma rate at 3 months was 20%, which dropped to 8% at 12 months; no events required intervention. At 12 months, 91% of patients reported an overall quality of life score as ≥8 of 10, and patient-reported cosmesis was good or excellent in 95%. All patients are alive without relapse at the last follow-up., Conclusions: Three-fraction ICBB is associated with low rates of early provider and patient- reported adverse events and compares favorably with early outcomes of more protracted ICBB regimens, including twice-daily (3.4 Gy × 10) fractionation studied in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-39. Further investigation is warranted., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of breast density as an indication for preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for surgical planning in women with breast cancer is unknown., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 who underwent preoperative MRI. We obtained clinical and pathological data and grouped patients by mammographic breast density, with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density A and B considered low density, and C and D considered high density. We analyzed local recurrence rates by breast density., Results: Among 683 patients, 66.6% had high breast density. We noted MRI abnormalities in the ipsilateral breast in 41.8% high-density and 30.7% low-density breasts, while contralateral abnormalities were noted in 24.9% high-density and 13.8% low-density breasts. Biopsy was recommended for MRI findings in a similar number of patients regardless of density cohort. While more abnormalities were found in high-density breasts, the rate of additional cancer found was not significantly different (ipsilateral: 32 vs. 23%; contralateral: 6.2 vs. 3.2%) for high-and low-density patients, respectively (both p > 0.15). With a median follow-up of 89 months, and similar rates of adjuvant systemic and radiation therapy, no difference in local recurrence rates existed when stratified according to density classification (p > 0.53)., Conclusion: While more abnormalities were identified on MRI in dense breasts, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of cancers identified or in recurrence rates. These findings question the routine use of preoperative breast MRI in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer based solely on breast density.

Background: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms., Methods: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898., Findings: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014)., Interpretation: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative., Funding: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy., Methods: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group., Interpretation: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ., Funding: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9804 study identified good-risk patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a breast cancer diagnosis found frequently in mammographically detected cancers, to test the benefit of radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery compared with observation., Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized trial (1998 to 2006) in women with mammographically detected low- or intermediate-grade DCIS, measuring less than 2.5 cm with margins ≥ 3 mm, compared RT with observation after surgery. The study was designed for 1,790 patients but was closed early because of lower than projected accrual. Six hundred thirty-six patients from the United States and Canada were entered; tamoxifen use (62%) was optional. Ipsilateral local failure (LF) was the primary end point; LF and contralateral failure were estimated using cumulative incidence, and overall and disease-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Median follow-up time was 7.17 years (range, 0.01 to 11.33 years). Two LFs occurred in the RT arm, and 19 occurred in the observation arm. At 7 years, the LF rate was 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0% to 2.2%) in the RT arm versus 6.7% (95% CI, 3.2% to 9.6%) in the observation arm (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.47; P < .001). Grade 1 to 2 acute toxicities occurred in 30% and 76% of patients in the observation and RT arms, respectively; grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in 4.0% and 4.2% of patients, respectively. Late RT toxicity was grade 1 in 30%, grade 2 in 4.6%, and grade 3 in 0.7% of patients., Conclusion: In this good-risk subset of patients with DCIS, with a median follow-up of 7 years, the LF rate was low with observation but was decreased significantly with the addition of RT. Longer follow-up is planned because the timeline for LF in this setting seems protracted., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: In women with breast cancer and calcifications, controversy exists over the need for postexcision/lumpectomy, preradiation mammogram (PEM) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Further, the need for excision of remaining or suspicious calcifications after PEM when surgical margins are negative is unclear. We sought to characterize the utility of PEM hypothesizing that its value in directing the need for additional surgery is minimized after achieving negative surgical margins., Methods: We identified 524 women with breast cancer and calcifications treated with BCS with negative margins between 1996 and 2011., Results: PEM was performed in 112 of 524 (21 %) women, with residual calcifications identified in 10 of 112 (9 %); of these, 2 of 112 (1.8 %) had residual disease. Local recurrence occurred in 4 of 112 (4 %) patients, none of whom had residual calcifications identified on PEM. The remaining 412 of 524 (79 %) women did not have PEM but had a postradiation mammogram 6 to 12 months after treatment identifying calcifications in 19 (5 %) women. Tissue diagnosis was benign in 14 women and was not pursued in the remaining 5. Local recurrence occurred in 13 (3 %) patients, none of whom had calcifications on the new post radiation baseline mammogram., Conclusions: Mammographically apparent calcifications representing residual disease occur infrequently after BCS with negative margins. The value of PEM may be to document the new radiographic baseline but should not be required to ensure adequate surgery. Radiation plays an integral role in sterilization of the remaining breast tissue after BCS.

Purpose: To study the utility of preoperative breast MRI for partial breast irradiation (PBI) patient selection, using multivariable analysis of significant risk factors to create a classification rule., Methods and Materials: Between 2002 and 2009, 712 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent preoperative bilateral breast MRI at Mayo Clinic Florida. Of this cohort, 566 were retrospectively deemed eligible for PBI according to the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-39 inclusion criteria using physical examination, mammogram, and/or ultrasound. Magnetic resonance images were then reviewed to determine their impact on patient eligibility. The patient and tumor characteristics were evaluated to determine risk factors for altered PBI eligibility after MRI and to create a classification rule., Results: Of the 566 patients initially eligible for PBI, 141 (25%) were found ineligible because of pathologically proven MRI findings. Magnetic resonance imaging detected additional ipsilateral breast cancer in 118 (21%). Of these, 62 (11%) had more extensive disease than originally noted before MRI, and 64 (11%) had multicentric disease. Contralateral breast cancer was detected in 28 (5%). Four characteristics were found to be significantly associated with PBI ineligibility after MRI on multivariable analysis: premenopausal status (P=.021), detection by palpation (P<.001), first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer (P=.033), and lobular histology (P=.002). Risk factors were assigned a score of 0-2. The risk of altered PBI eligibility from MRI based on number of risk factors was 0:18%; 1:22%; 2:42%; 3:65%., Conclusions: Preoperative bilateral breast MRI altered the PBI recommendations for 25% of women. Women who may undergo PBI should be considered for breast MRI, especially those with lobular histology or with 2 or more of the following risk factors: premenopausal, detection by palpation, and first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The influence of patient age on multidisciplinary treatment planning after preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its influence on the surgical decision-making process are unclear., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 710 women with breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI at our institution between January 2003 and December 2008. Analysis by patient age included the number of additional ipsilateral MRI findings, the number of biopsies recommended/performed, the number of additional cancers found, and the percentage of patients undergoing mastectomy., Results: Of the 710 patients, 343 (48%) had additional ipsilateral MRI findings. After stratifying by age, the incidence of additional ipsilateral findings differed between decades (P = 0.004). However, fewer biopsies were recommended in older patients (P = 0.043). The number of women pursuing preoperative needle biopsy increased with age (P = 0.0018), while the incidence of a second focus of breast cancer did not change with age (P = 0.07). The mastectomy rate decreased from 65% in women younger than 50 to 40% in women older than 70 (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In the setting of newly diagnosed breast cancer, the value of MRI is not influenced by patient age, with at least 40% of women in all age groups having additional findings on MRI. Insisting on preoperative needle biopsy of additional findings may decrease mastectomy rates. Further study is needed to determine the reasons for the increased percentage of mastectomies in younger women.

The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer is somewhat controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of synchronous, occult contralateral breast cancer detected by MRI but not by mammography or clinical breast examination in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, including those aged 70 years or older at our institution. MRI results for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent bilateral breast MRI after negative mammography and clinical examination between February 2003 and November 2007 at Mayo Clinic in Florida were reviewed. The prevalence of pathologically confirmed contralateral carcinoma diagnosed solely by MRI was determined and analyzed in the context of age, family history, menopausal status, breast density, and primary-tumor characteristics. Logistic regression was used to explore the association between contralateral carcinoma and potential patient risk factors. A total of 425 women were evaluated, of whom 129 (30%) were aged 70 years or older. A contralateral biopsy was recommended and performed solely on the basis of MRI in 72 of the 425 women (17%). Sixteen of these 72 women (22%) had pathologically confirmed carcinoma, including seven in the older subgroup. The prevalence of clinically and mammographically occult contralateral carcinoma detected by MRI was 3.8% (16/425) overall and 5.4% (7/129) in the group of older women. When potential risk factors for contralateral breast cancer were evaluated, postmenopausal status was the only significant predictor of contralateral cancer detected by MRI (p = 0.016). We concluded that contralateral breast screening with MRI should be considered in postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, even those aged 70 years or older at diagnosis.

Purpose: To determine whether three-dimensional conformal partial breast irradiation (3D-PBI) spares lung tissue compared with whole breast irradiation (WBI) and to include the biologically equivalent dose (BED) to account for differences in fractionation., Methods and Materials: Radiotherapy treatment plans were devised for WBI and 3D-PBI for 25 consecutive patients randomized on the NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 protocol at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. WBI plans were for 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and 3D-PBI plans were for 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions. Volume of ipsilateral lung receiving 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Gy was recorded for each plan. The linear quadratic equation was used to calculate the corresponding dose delivered in 10 fractions and volume of ipsilateral lung receiving these doses was recorded for PBI plans. Ipsilateral mean lung dose was recorded for each plan and converted to BED., Results: There was a significant decrease in volume of lung receiving 20 Gy with PBI (median, 4.4% vs. 7.5%; p < 0.001), which remained after correction for fractionation (median, 5.6% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.02). Mean lung dose was lower for PBI (median, 3.46 Gy vs. 4.57 Gy; p = 0.005), although this difference lost significance after conversion to BED (median, 3.86 Gy(3) vs 4.85 Gy(3), p = 0.07). PBI plans exposed more lung to 2.5 and 5 Gy., Conclusions: 3D-PBI exposes greater volumes of lung tissue to low doses of radiation and spares the amount of lung receiving higher doses when compared with WBI.

To compare the radiation dose to normal cardiac tissue for 3Dimensional (3D) conformal external beam partial breast irradiation (PBI) and standard whole breast irradiation (WBI), and examine the effect of tumor bed location. For 14 patients with left breast tumors randomized on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-39 protocol, computer-generated radiotherapy treatment plans were devised for WBI and PBI. Tumor bed location was designated according to whether more than 50% of the excision cavity was medial or lateral to the nipple line. The volume of heart receiving doses of 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Gy was calculated for all PBI and WBI plans. Dose to 5% of the heart volume (D5) and mean heart dose were also calculated. The biologically-equivalent dose (BED) was calculated to account for the different fractionation used in PBI and WBI. Of the 14 patients, 8 had lateral tumor beds, and 6 had medial tumor beds. The volumes of heart receiving 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Gy were significantly lower for lateral PBI compared with WBI. For medial PBI, significant cardiac sparing was only seen at a dose of 20 Gy. The difference of D5 values was significant for lateral PBI compared with WBI (p=0.008), but not for medial PBI compared with WBI (p=0.84). The mean dose was also significantly lower for lateral PBI compared with WBI (p=0.008), but not for medial PBI (p=0.16). The results from BED calculations did not change this outcome. Both 3D conformal PBI and standard WBI can deliver relatively low doses to the heart. For patients with lateralized tumor beds, PBI offers significant cardiac sparing compared with WBI. Patients with medial lesions have relatively similar heart dosimetry with PBI and WBI. 3D conformal PBI is an emerging treatment modality and continued participation on clinical trials is encouraged. Patients with left-sided lesions and lateralized tumor beds warrant special consideration for PBI, given the significant cardiac dose sparing.