Search

Purpose: Questions remain about whether moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation is appropriate for patients with triple-negative breast cancer., Methods and Materials: Using the prospective database of a multicenter, collaborative quality improvement consortium, we identified patients with node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer who received whole-breast irradiation with either moderate hypofractionation or conventional fractionation. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), we compared outcomes using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimation method with Cox regression models estimating the hazard ratio for time-to-event endpoints between groups., Results: The sample included 538 patients treated at 18 centers in 1 state in the United States, of whom 307 received conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation and 231 received moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. The median follow-up time was 5.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-5.15 years). The 5-year IPTW estimates for freedom from local recurrence were 93.6% (95% CI, 87.8%-96.7%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 94.4% (95% CI, 90.3%-96.8%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.51-2.17; P = .89). The 5-year IPTW estimates for recurrence-free survival were 87.8% (95% CI, 81.0%-92.4%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 88.4% (95% CI 83.2%-92.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.62-1.67; P = .95). The 5-year IPTW estimates for overall survival were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.0%-98.5%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 93.4% (95% CI, 88.7%-96.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.30-1.42; P = .28)., Conclusions: Analysis of outcomes in this large observational cohort of patients with triple-negative, node-negative breast cancer treated with whole-breast irradiation revealed no differences by dose fractionation. This adds evidence to support the use of moderate hypofractionation in patients with triple-negative disease., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of rotational setup errors on dose distribution in spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)., Methods and Materials: Thirty-nine cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 16 SBRT treatment courses were analyzed. Alignment (including rotation) to the treatment planning computed tomography was performed, followed by translational alignment that reproduced the actual positioning. The planned fluence was then applied to determine the delivered dose to the targets and organs at risk., Results: The mean planning target volume (PTV) was 71.01 mL (SD +/- 60.05; range, 22.62-250.65 mL). Prescribed dose (to the 62-82% isodose) was 14-30 Gy in one to six fractions. The average rotational displacements were 0.38 +/- 1.21, 1.12 +/- 1.82, and -0.51 +/- 2.0 degrees with maximal rotations of -4.29, 5.76, and -6.64 degrees along the x (pitch), y (yaw), and z (roll) axes, respectively. PTV coverage changed by an average of -0.07 Gy (SD +/- 0.20 Gy) between the rotated and the original plan, representing 0.92% of prescription dose (SD +/- 2.65%). For the spinal cord, planned with 2-mm expansion to create a planning organ at risk volume (PRV), the difference in minimum dose to the upper 10% of the PRV volume was 0.03 +/- 0.3 Gy (maximum, 0.9 Gy). Other organs at risk saw insignificant changes in dose., Conclusions: PRV expansion generally assures safe treatment delivery in the face of typically encountered rotations. Given the variability of delivered dose within this expansion for certain cases, caution should be taken to properly interpret doses to the cord when considering clinical dose limits.