Search

Purpose: To determine whether a boost to the tumor bed after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) to the whole breast affects local control and disease-free survival. Methods and Materials: A total of 1,138 patients with pT1 to pT2 breast cancer underwent adjuvant RT at the University of Florence. We analyzed only patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year (range, 1–20 years), with negative surgical margins. The median age of the patient population was 52.0 years (±7.9 years). The breast cancer relapse incidence probability was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between patient subgroups were compared by the log rank test. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the risk of breast cancer relapse. Results: On univariate survival analysis, boost to the tumor bed reduced breast cancer recurrence (p < 0.0001). Age and tamoxifen also significantly reduced breast cancer relapse (p = 0.01 and p = 0.014, respectively). On multivariate analysis, the boost and the medium age (45–60 years) were found to be inversely related to breast cancer relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.14–0.52, and HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.99, respectively). The effect of the boost was more evident in younger patients (HR, 0.15 and 95% CI, 0.03–0.66 for patients <45 years of age; and HR, 0.31 and 95% CI, 0.13–0.71 for patients 45–60 years) on multivariate analyses stratified by age, although it was not a significant predictor in women older than 60 years. Conclusion: Our results suggest that boost to the tumor bed reduces breast cancer relapse and is more effective in younger patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To analyze the relationship between a delay in radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery and ipsilateral breast recurrence (BR). Methods and Materials: We included in our analysis 4,820 breast cancer patients who had undergone postoperative RT at the University of Florence. The patients were categorized into four groups according to the interval between surgery and RT (T1, <60 days; T2, 61–120 days; T3, 121–180 days; and T4, >180 days). Results: On multivariate analysis, the timing of RT did not reach statistical significance in patients who received only postoperative RT (n = 1,935) or RT and hormonal therapy (HT) (n = 1,684) or RT, chemotherapy (CHT), and HT (n = 529). In the postoperative RT-only group, age at presentation, surgical margin status, and a boost to the tumor bed were independent prognostic factors for BR. In the RT plus HT group, age at presentation and boost emerged as independent prognostic factors for BR (p = 0.006 and p = 0.049, respectively). Finally, in the RT, CHT, and HT group, only multifocality was an independent BR predictor (p = 0.01). Only in the group of patients treated with RT and CHT (n = 672) did multivariate analysis with stepwise selection show RT timing as an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–2.52; p = 0.045). Analyzing this group of patients, we found that most patients included had worse prognostic factors and had received CHT consisting of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil before undergoing RT. Conclusion: The results of our study have shown that the timing of RT itself does not affect local recurrence, which is mainly related to prognostic factors. Thus, the “waiting list” should be thought of as a “programming list,” with patients scheduled for RT according to their prognostic factors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]