J.L. Wobb

Role of Internal Mammary Node Radiation as a Part of Modern Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE Despite data from multiple randomized trials, the role of internal mammary lymph node irradiation as a part of regional nodal irradiation (IMLN RT-RNI) remains unanswered. Recent noteworthy data and modern RT techniques might identify a subset of patients who will benefit from IMLN RT-RNI, lending insight into the balance between improved outcomes and acceptable toxicity. We evaluated the current role of IMLN RT-RNI by analyzing randomized, prospective, and retrospective data. METHODS AND MATERIALS In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a review of the published data was performed using PubMed to evaluate published studies from 1994 to 2015. The information evaluated included the number of patients, follow-up period, technical aspects of RT, and outcomes (clinical outcomes, complications/toxicity). RESULTS We included 16 studies (4 randomized, 4 nonrandomized, 7 retrospective, and 1 meta-analysis). Although older randomized trials failed to show differences in clinical outcomes or toxicity with IMLN RT-RNI, recent randomized data suggest the potential for improved outcomes, including overall survival, with IMLN RT-RNI. Furthermore, nonrandomized data have suggested a potential benefit for central tumors with IMLN RT-RNI. Although recent data have suggested a potential increase in pulmonary complications with IMLN RT-RNI with the use of advanced radiation techniques, toxicity rates remain low with limited cardiac toxicity data available. CONCLUSIONS Increasing data from recent randomized trials support the use of IMLN RT-RNI. IMLN RT can be considered based on the inclusion of IMLN RT as a part of RNI in recent trials and the inclusion criteria from IMLN RT-RNI trials and for patients with central or medial tumors and axillary disease.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation utilizing brachytherapy: patient selection and workflow

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) represents an evolving technique that is a standard of care option in appropriately selected woman following breast conserving surgery. While multiple techniques now exist to deliver APBI, interstitial brachytherapy represents the technique used in several randomized trials (National Institute of Oncology, GEC-ESTRO). More recently, many centers have adopted applicator-based brachytherapy to deliver APBI due to the technical complexities of interstitial brachytherapy. The purpose of this article is to review methods to evaluate and select patients for APBI, as well as to define potential workflow mechanisms that allow for the safe and effective delivery of APBI. Multiple consensus statements have been developed to guide clinicians on determining appropriate candidates for APBI. However, recent studies have demonstrated that these guidelines fail to stratify patients according to the risk of local recurrence, and updated guidelines are expected in the years to come. Critical elements of workflow to ensure safe and effective delivery of APBI include a multidisciplinary approach and evaluation, optimization of target coverage and adherence to normal tissue guideline constraints, and proper quality assurance methods.

Comparison of chronic toxicities between brachytherapy-based accelerated partial breast irradiation and whole breast irradiation using intensity modulated radiotherapy

PURPOSE Brachytherapy-based APBI (bAPBI) shortens treatment duration and limits dose to normal tissue. While studies have demonstrated similar local control when comparing bAPBI and whole breast irradiation using intensity modulated radiotherapy (WBI-IMRT), comparison of late side effects is limited. Here, we report chronic toxicity profiles associated with these two treatment modalities. METHODS 1034 patients with early stage breast cancer were treated at a single institution; 489 received standard-fractionation WBI-IMRT between 2000 and 2013 and 545 received bAPBI (interstitial 40%, applicator-based 60%) between 1993 and 2013. Chronic toxicity was evaluated ≥6 months utilizing CTCAE version 3.0; cosmesis was evaluated using the Harvard scale. RESULTS Median follow-up was 4.6 years (range 0.1-13.4) for WBI-IMRT versus 6.7 years (range 0.1-20.1) for bAPBI (p < 0.001). Compared to WBI-IMRT, bAPBI was associated with higher rates of ≥grade 2 seroma formation (14.4% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001), telangiectasia (12.3% vs 2.1%, p = 0.002) and symptomatic fat necrosis (10.2% vs 3.6%, p < 0.001). Lower rates of hyperpigmentation were observed (5.8% vs 14.5%; p = 0.001). Infection rates were similar (3.3% vs 1.3%, p = 0.07). There was no difference between rates of fair (6.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.30) or poor (0.2% vs. 0.5%, p = NS) cosmesis. Mastectomy rates for local recurrence (3.1% for WBI-IMRT and 1.2% for bAPBI, p = 0.06), or for other reasons (0.8% and 0.6%, p = 0.60) were similar between groups. CONCLUSION With 5-year follow-up, WBI-IMRT and bAPBI are associated with similar, acceptable rates of toxicity. These data further support the utilization of bAPBI as a modality to deliver adjuvant radiation in a safe and efficacious manner.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in cisplatin versus cetuximab chemoradiation for locally advanced p16 positive oropharyngeal carcinoma

OBJECTIVES Randomized trials evaluating cisplatin versus cetuximab chemoradiation (CRT) for p16+ oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) have yet to report preliminary data. Meanwhile, as a preemptive step toward morbidity reduction, the off-trial use of cetuximab in p16+ patients is increasing, even in those who could potentially tolerate cisplatin. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cisplatin versus cetuximab CRT in the treatment of p16+ OPC and to identify prognostic factors and predictors of tumor response. MATERIALS AND METHODS Cases of p16+ OPC treated with cisplatin or cetuximab CRT at our institution from 2010 to 2014 were identified. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classification was used to determine low-risk (LR-RPA) and intermediate-risk (IR-RPA) groups. Log-rank/Kaplan-Meier and Cox Regression methods were used to compare groups. RESULTS We identified 205 patients who received cisplatin (n = 137) or cetuximab (n = 68) CRT in the definitive (n = 178) or postoperative (n = 27) setting. Median follow-up was 3 years. Cisplatin improved 3-year locoregional control (LRC) [92.7 vs 65.4%], distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) [88.3 vs 71.2%], recurrence-free survival (RFS) [86.6 vs 50.6%], and overall survival (OS) [92.6 vs 72.2%] compared to cetuximab [all p < .001]. Concurrent cisplatin improved 3-year OS for LR-RPA (97.1 vs 80.3%, p < .001) and IR-RPA (97.1 vs 80.3%, p < .001) groupings. CONCLUSION When treating p16+ OPC with CRT, the threshold for substitution of cisplatin with cetuximab should be maintained appropriately high in order to prolong survival times and optimize locoregional and distant tumor control. When cetuximab is used in cisplatin-ineligible patients, altered fractionation RT should be considered in an effort to improve LRC.

Sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: Treatment outcomes and association with human papillomavirus

The purpose of this study was to review long‐term outcomes of sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) and to clarify its association with human papillomavirus (HPV).