Propensity-score matched pair comparison of brachytherapy-based accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast Canadian hypofractionation.

Authors

null

Peter Y. Chen

Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Beaumont Cancer Institute, Royal Oak, MI

Peter Y. Chen , John Ben Wilkinson , Chirag Shah , Jessica Wobb , Michelle Wallace , Hong Ye , Ovidiu Marina , Pamela Benitez , Nayana Dekhne , Donald S. Brabbins , Frank Vicini

Organizations

Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Beaumont Cancer Institute, Royal Oak, MI, Summa-Akron City/St. Thomas Hospitals, Akron, OH, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, Michigan Healthcare Professionals, 21st Century Oncology, Farmington Hills, MI

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: Given the initial report of the RAPID trial with greater morbidity for 3-D conformal external beam APBI [3D-APBI] vs. Canadian Hypofractionation [CHfx], a propensity-score matched-pair analysis of brachytherapy-based APBI [B-APBI] vs. CHfx was performed to assess efficacy, toxicities, and cosmesis. Methods: Early-stage breast cancer patients treated with B-APBI or CHfx were reviewed. With ≥ 1y follow-up [FU], B-APBI (n=108) pts were matched 1:1 to CHfx (n=108) by age, T-stage, nodal/ER status, endocrine or chemotherapy and laterality. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), regional recurrence (RR), distant metastasis (DM), contralateral breast cancer (CLBC), cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by Kaplan-Meier (log-rank test). Toxicities were graded per CTCAE v3 and comesis per Harvard criteria. Results: Median FU was 5.7 y (1.0-17.8) for B-APBI and 2.1 y (1.0-5.7) for CHfx [p < 0.001]. Patients did not differ by match criteria. In comparing B-APBI to CHfx, median age was 69.0 vs. 70.0 [p = 0.72]; for laterality, T-stage, nodal/ER status, endocrine or chemotherapy, no significance [NS] was noted between the 2 groups [p = 0.79, 1.0, 0.60, 0.09, 0.15, and 0.16 respectively]. Comparing B-APBI to CHfx, NS was seen in 5-y actuarial rates of IBTR [1% vs. 0% p = 0.35], RR [0% both], DM [3.4% vs. 0% p = 0.25], CLBC [2.3% vs. 2% p = 0.63], CSS [94.3% vs. 100% p = 0.47], OS [87.7% vs. 88.3% p = 0.71] & DFS [97.5% vs. 100% p = 0.52]. The majority of maximal late toxicities were Gr 1-2. Of toxicities analyzed, including pigmentary changes, edema, pain, induration, volume reduction, telangiectasia, fat necrosis and seroma, only Gr 2-3 hyperpigmentation was significantly higher in the CHfx [8% B-APBI vs. 22% CHfx p = 0.017]. Good/excellent cosmesis was seen in > 93% in both groups. Conclusions: With FU of >5 yrs, B-APBI has similar efficacy and cosmesis but less morbidity vs. CHfx; the lesser toxicity of B-APBI vs. CHfx is in contradistinction to the RAPID results comparing 3D-APBI vs. CHfx. Further FU and more patients are needed to substantiate these findings.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 Breast Cancer Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

General Poster Session A

Track

Local/Regional Therapy,Risk Assessment, Prevention, Detection, and Screening

Sub Track

Biology in Local/Regional Management

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl 26; abstr 65)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2013.31.26_suppl.65

Abstract #

65

Poster Bd #

D14

Abstract Disclosures