Alphonse G. Taghian

Breast Cancer Subtype Approximated by Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER-2 Is Associated With Local and Distant Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Therapy

PURPOSE To determine whether breast cancer subtype is associated with outcome after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) consisting of lumpectomy and radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS We studied 793 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer who received BCT from July 1998 to December 2001. Among them, 97% had pathologically negative margins of resection, and 90% received adjuvant systemic therapy. No patient received adjuvant trastuzumab. Receptor status was used to approximate subtype: estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative = luminal A; ER+ or PR+ and HER-2+ = luminal B; ER-and PR -and HER-2+ = HER-2; and ER-and PR -and HER-2-= basal. Competing risks methodology was used to analyze time to local recurrence and distant metastases. RESULTS Median follow-up was 70 months. The overall 5-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence was 1.8% (95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1); 0.8% (0.3, 2.2) for luminal A, 1.5% (0.2, 10) for luminal B, 8.4% (2.2, 30) for HER-2, and 7.1% (3.0, 16) for basal. On multivariable analysis (MVA) with luminal A as baseline, HER-2 (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 9.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 51; P = .012) and basal (AHR = 7.1; 95% CI, 1.6 to 31; P = .009) subtypes were associated with increased local recurrence. On MVA, luminal B (AHR = 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.5; P = .007) and basal (AHR = 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.2; P = .035) were associated with increased distant metastases. CONCLUSION Overall, the 5-year local recurrence rate after BCT was low, but varied by subtype as approximated using ER, PR, and HER-2 status. Local recurrence was particularly low for the luminal A subtype, but was less than 10% at 5 years for all subtypes. Although further follow-up is needed, these results may be useful in counseling patients about their anticipated outcome after BCT.

Patterns of locoregional failure in patients with operable Breast cancer treated by mastectomy and Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without tamoxifen and without radiotherapy: Results from five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Randomized Clinical trials

PURPOSE To assess patterns of locoregional failure (LRF) in lymph node-positive (LN+) breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy (+/- tamoxifen) and without postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS We examined 5,758 patients enrolled onto the B-15, B-16, B-18, B-22, and B-25 trials. Median follow-up time was 11.1 years. Distribution of pathologic tumor size was < or = 2 cm, 2.1 to 5 cm, and more than 5 cm in 30%, 52%, and 11% of patients, respectively. Distribution of the number of LN+ was one to three, four to nine, and > or = 10 in 51%, 32%, and 16% of patients, respectively. Ninety percent of patients received doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. RESULTS The overall 10-year cumulative incidences of isolated LRF, LRF with or without distant failure (DF), and DF alone as first event were 12.2%, 19.8%, and 43.3%, respectively. Cumulative incidences for LRF as first event with or without DF for patients with one to three, four to nine, and > or = 10 LN+ were 13.0%, 24.4%, and 31.9%, respectively (P < .0001). For patients with a tumor size of < or = 2 cm, 2.1 to 5.0 cm, and more than 5.0 cm, these incidences were 14.9%, 21.3%, and 24.6%, respectively (P < .0001). Multivariate analysis showed age, tumor size, premenopausal status, number of LN+, and number of dissected LN as significant predictors for LRF as first event. CONCLUSION In patients with large tumors and four or more LN+, LRF as first event remains a significant problem. Although PMRT is currently recommended for patients with four or more LN+, it may also have value in selected patients with one to three LN+. However, in the absence of a randomized trial examining the worth of radiotherapy in this group of patients, the value of PMRT remains unknown.

Long term risk of sarcoma following radiation treatment for breast cancer

Between 1954 and 1983, 7620 patients were treated for breast carcinoma at Institut Gustave Roussy (France). Of these patients, 6919 were followed for at least 1 year. Out of these, 11 presented with sarcomas thought to be induced by irradiation, 2 of which were Steward-Treves Syndrome, and 9 of which were sarcomas within the irradiated fields. All histological slides were reviewed and a comparison with those of breast cancer was done. The sites of these sarcomas were: parietal wall, 1 case; second costal cartilage, 1 case; infraclavicular region, 1 case; supraclavicular region, 2 cases; internal third of the clavicle, 2 cases; axillary region 2 cases; and the internal side of the upper arm (Stewart-Treves syndrome), 2 cases. The median age of these 11 patients at the diagnosis of sarcomas was 65.8 (49-83). The mean latent period was 9.5 years (4-24). Three patients underwent radical mastectomy and nine modified radical mastectomy. Only one patient received chemotherapy. The radiation doses received at the site of the sarcoma were 45 Gy/18 fr. for 10 cases and 90-100 Gy for 1 case (due to overlapping between two fields). The histology was as follows: malignant fibrous histiocytoma, 5 cases; fibrosarcoma, 3 cases; lymphangiosarcoma, 2 cases; and osteochondrosarcoma, 1 case. The median survival following diagnosis of sarcoma was 2.4 years (4 months-9 years). Two patients are still alive: one with recurrence of her breast cancer, the other in complete remission, with 7 and 3 years follow-up, respectively. All other patients died from their sarcomas. The cumulative incidence of sarcoma following irradiation of breast cancer was 0.2% (0.09-0.47) at 10 years. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of sarcoma (observed n# of cases (Obs)/expected n# of cases (Exp) computed from the Danish Cancer Registry for the same period) was 1.81 (CI 0.91-3.23). This is significantly higher than one, with a p = 0.03 (One Tailed Exact Test). The mean annual excess (Obs-Exp)/100.000 person-years at risk during the same period/(100,000) was 9.92. This study suggests that patients treated by radiation for breast cancer have a risk of subsequent sarcomas that is higher than the general population. However, the benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer exceeds the risk of second cancer; therefore, the potential of radiation-induced sarcomas should not be a factor in the selection of treatment for patients with breast cancer.

Fractionation for whole breast irradiation: An American society for radiation oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guideline

PURPOSE In patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, randomized trials have found little difference in local control and survival outcomes between patients treated with conventionally fractionated (CF-) whole breast irradiation (WBI) and those receiving hypofractionated (HF)-WBI. However, it remains controversial whether these results apply to all subgroups of patients. We therefore developed an evidence-based guideline to provide direction for clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS A task force authorized by the American Society for Radiation Oncology weighed evidence from a systematic literature review and produced the recommendations contained herein. RESULTS The majority of patients in randomized trials were aged 50 years or older, had disease Stage pT1-2 pN0, did not receive chemotherapy, and were treated with a radiation dose homogeneity within ±7% in the central axis plane. Such patients experienced equivalent outcomes with either HF-WBI or CF-WBI. Patients not meeting these criteria were relatively underrepresented, and few of the trials reported subgroup analyses. For patients not receiving a radiation boost, the task force favored a dose schedule of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions when HF-WBI is planned. The task force also recommended that the heart should be excluded from the primary treatment fields (when HF-WBI is used) due to lingering uncertainty regarding late effects of HF-WBI on cardiac function. The task force could not agree on the appropriateness of a tumor bed boost in patients treated with HF-WBI. CONCLUSION Data were sufficient to support the use of HF-WBI for patients with early-stage breast cancer who met all the aforementioned criteria. For other patients, the task force could not reach agreement either for or against the use of HF-WBI, which nevertheless should not be interpreted as a contraindication to its use.

Age, Breast Cancer Subtype Approximation, and Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Therapy

PURPOSE Prior results of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) have shown substantial rates of local recurrence (LR) in young patients with breast cancer (BC). PATIENTS AND METHODS We studied 1,434 consecutive patients with invasive BC who received BCT from December 1997 to July 2006. Ninety-one percent received adjuvant systemic therapy; no patients received trastuzumab. Five BC subtypes were approximated: estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive, HER2 negative, and grades 1 to 2 (ie, luminal A); ER positive or PR positive, HER2 negative, and grade 3 (ie, luminal B); ER or PR positive, and HER2 positive (ie, luminal HER2); ER negative, PR negative, and HER2 positive (ie, HER2); and ER negative, PR negative, and HER2 negative (ie, triple negative). Actuarial rates of LR were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Median follow-up was 85 months. Overall 5-year cumulative incidence of LR was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4% to 3.0%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of LR was 5.0% (95% CI, 3.0% to 8.3%) for age quartile 23 to 46 years; 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0% to 4.6%) for ages 47 to 54 years; 0.9% (95% CI, 0.3% to 2.6%) for ages 55 to 63 years; and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.1% to 2.2%) for ages 64 to 88 years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of LR was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4% to 1.8%) for luminal A; 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8% to 5.9%) for luminal B; 1.1% (95% CI, 0.2% 7.4%) for luminal HER2; 10.8% (95% CI, 4.6% to 24.4%) for HER2; and 6.7% (95% CI, 3.6% to 12.2%) for triple negative. On multivariable analysis, increasing age was associated with decreased risk of LR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.99; P = .009). CONCLUSION In the era of systemic therapy and BC subtyping, age remains an independent prognostic factor after BCT. However, the risk of LR for young women appears acceptably low.

Predictors of Locoregional Recurrence After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results From Combined Analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27

PURPOSE The limited information on predictors of locoregional recurrence (LRR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) has resulted in controversy about the optimal use of adjuvant radiotherapy and the timing of sentinel lymph node biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS We examined patterns and predictors of LRR as first event in combined analysis of two National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) neoadjuvant trials. NC was either doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) alone or AC followed by neoadjuvant/adjuvant docetaxel. Lumpectomy patients received breast radiotherapy alone; mastectomy patients received no radiotherapy. Pathologic complete response was defined as the absence of invasive tumor in the breast. Multivariate analyses were used to identify independent predictors of LRR. The primary end point was time to LRR as first event. RESULTS In 3,088 patients, 335 LRR events had occurred after 10 years of follow-up. The 10-year cumulative incidence of LRR was 12.3% for mastectomy patients (8.9% local; 3.4% regional) and 10.3% for lumpectomy plus breast radiotherapy patients (8.1% local; 2.2% regional). Independent predictors of LRR in lumpectomy patients were age, clinical nodal status (before NC), and pathologic nodal status/breast tumor response; in mastectomy patients, they were clinical tumor size (before NC), clinical nodal status (before NC), and pathologic nodal status/breast tumor response. By using these independent predictors, groups at low, intermediate, and high risk of LRR could be identified. Nomograms that incorporate these independent predictors were created. CONCLUSION In patients treated with NC, age, clinical tumor characteristics before NC, and pathologic nodal status/breast tumor response after NC can be used to predict risk for LRR and to optimize the use of adjuvant radiotherapy.

VARIABILITY OF TARGET AND NORMAL STRUCTURE DELINEATION FOR BREAST CANCER RADIOTHERAPY : AN RTOG MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL AND MULTIOBSERVER STUDY

PURPOSE To quantify the multi-institutional and multiobserver variability of target and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation for breast-cancer radiotherapy (RT) and its dosimetric impact as the first step of a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group effort to establish a breast cancer atlas. METHODS AND MATERIALS Nine radiation oncologists specializing in breast RT from eight institutions independently delineated targets (e.g., lumpectomy cavity, boost planning target volume, breast, supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary nodes, chest wall) and OARs (e.g., heart, lung) on the same CT images of three representative breast cancer patients. Interobserver differences in structure delineation were quantified regarding volume, distance between centers of mass, percent overlap, and average surface distance. Mean, median, and standard deviation for these quantities were calculated for all possible combinations. To assess the impact of these variations on treatment planning, representative dosimetric plans based on observer-specific contours were generated. RESULTS Variability in contouring the targets and OARs between the institutions and observers was substantial. Structure overlaps were as low as 10%, and volume variations had standard deviations up to 60%. The large variability was related both to differences in opinion regarding target and OAR boundaries and approach to incorporation of setup uncertainty and dosimetric limitations in target delineation. These interobserver differences result in substantial variations in dosimetric planning for breast RT. CONCLUSIONS Differences in target and OAR delineation for breast irradiation between institutions/observers appear to be clinically and dosimetrically significant. A systematic consensus is highly desirable, particularly in the era of intensity-modulated and image-guided RT.

Risk of lymphedema after regional nodal irradiation with breast conservation therapy

PURPOSE To evaluate the risk factors for lymphedema in patients receiving breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 1982 and 1995, 727 Stage I-II breast cancer patients were treated with breast conservation therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital. A retrospective analysis of the development of persistent arm edema was performed. Lymphedema was defined as a >2-cm difference in forearm circumference compared with the untreated side. The median follow-up was 72 months. Breast and regional nodal irradiation (BRNI) was administered in 32% of the cases and breast irradiation alone in 68%. RESULTS Persistent arm lymphedema was documented in 21 patients. The 10-year actuarial incidence was 4.1%. The median time to edema was 39 months. The only significant risk factor for lymphedema was BRNI. The 10-year risk was 1.8% for breast irradiation alone vs. 8.9% for BRNI (p = 0.001). The extent of axillary dissection did not predict for lymphedema even within the subgroups of patients defined by the extent of irradiation. Most patients underwent Level I or II dissection. In this subgroup, the lymphedema risk at 10 years was 10.7% for BRNI vs. 1.0% for breast irradiation alone (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION Nodal irradiation was the only significant risk factor for arm lymphedema in patients receiving breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Our data suggest that this risk is low with Level I/II dissection and breast irradiation. However, even after the addition of radiotherapy to the axilla and supraclavicular fossa, the development of lymphedema was only 1 in 10, lower than generally recognized.

Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey.

Objective:The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery is considered the strongest predictor for local failure. The purpose of this study is to survey how radiation oncologists in North America (NA) and Europe define negative or close surgical margins after lumpectomy and to determine the factors that govern the decision to recommend reexcision based on the margins status. Methods:A questionnaire was sent to active members of the European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology who had completed training in radiation oncology. Respondents were asked whether they would characterize margins to be negative or close for a variety of scenarios. A second survey was sent to 500 randomly selected radiation oncologists in the United States to assess when a reexcision would be recommended based on surgical margins. Results:A total of 702 responses were obtained from NA and 431 from Europe to the initial survey. An additional 130 responses were obtained from the United States to the second survey regarding reexcision recommendations. Nearly 46% of the North American respondents required only that there be “no tumor cells on the ink” to deem a margin negative (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project definition). A total of 7.4% and 21.8% required no tumor cells seen at <1 mm and <2 mm, respectively. The corresponding numbers from European respondents were 27.6%, 11.2%, and 8.8%, respectively (P <0.001). Europeans more frequently required a larger distance (>5 mm) between tumor cells and the inked edges before considering a margin to be negative. Conclusion:This study revealed significant variation in the perception of negative and close margins among radiation oncologists in NA and Europe. Given these findings, a universal definition of negative margins and consistent recommendations for reexcision are needed.

Paclitaxel decreases the interstitial fluid pressure and improves oxygenation in breast cancers in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: clinical implications.

PURPOSE It has been hypothesized that tumors with high interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) and/or hypoxia respond poorly to chemotherapy (CT) because of poor drug delivery. Preclinical studies have shown that paclitaxel reduces the IFP and improves the oxygenation (pO(2)) of tumors. Our aim is to evaluate the IFP and pO(2) before and after neoadjuvant CT using sequential paclitaxel and doxorubicin in patients with breast cancer tumors of >/= 3 cm. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned, according to an institutional review board-approved phase II protocol, to receive neoadjuvant sequential CT consisting of either four cycles of dose-dense doxorubicin at 60 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks followed by nine cycles of weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2) (group 1) or vice versa, with paclitaxel administered before doxorubicin (group 2). Patients were re-evaluated clinically and radiologically. The IFP (wick-in-needle technique) and pO(2) (Eppendorf) were measured in tumors at baseline and after completing the administration of the first and second drug. RESULTS IFP and pO(2) were measured in 54 patients at baseline and after the first CT. Twenty-nine and 25 patients were randomly assigned to groups 1 and 2, respectively. Paclitaxel, when administered first, decreased the mean IFP by 36% (P = .02) and improved the tumor pO(2) by almost 100% (P = .003). In contrast, doxorubicin did not have a significant effect on either parameter. This difference was independent of the tumor size or response measured by ultrasound. CONCLUSION Paclitaxel significantly decreased the IFP and increased the pO(2), whereas doxorubicin did not cause any significant changes. Tumor physiology could potentially be used to optimize the sequence of neoadjuvant CT in breast cancer.