Cargando…

External Beam Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Yields Favorable Outcomes in Patients with Prior Breast Augmentation

Purpose: To report outcomes in breast cancer patients with prior breast augmentation treated with external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (EB-APBI) utilizing intensity-modulated radiotherapy or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, both with IGRT. Materials and Methods: Sixteen stage 0/...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lei, Rachel Y., Leonard, Charles E., Howell, Kathryn T., Henkenberns, Phyllis L., Johnson, Timothy K., Hobart, Tracy L., Kercher, Jane M., Widner, Jodi L., Kaske, Terese, Barke, Lora D., Carter, Dennis L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995159
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00154
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: To report outcomes in breast cancer patients with prior breast augmentation treated with external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (EB-APBI) utilizing intensity-modulated radiotherapy or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, both with IGRT. Materials and Methods: Sixteen stage 0/1 breast cancer patients with previous elective bilateral augmentation were treated post-lumpectomy on institutional EB-APBI trials (01185132 and 01185145 on clinicaltrials.gov). Patients received 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions over five consecutive days. Breast/chest wall pain and cosmesis were rated by patient; cosmesis was additionally evaluated by physician per RTOG criteria. Results: The median follow-up from accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) completion was 23.9 months (range, 1.2–58.6). Little to no change in cosmesis or pain from baseline was reported. Cosmetic outcomes at last follow-up were judged by patients as excellent/good in 81.2% (13/16), and by physicians as excellent/good in 93.8% (15/16). Ten patients (62.5%) reported no breast/chest wall pain, five (31.2%) reported mild pain, and one (6.2%) reported moderate pain. All patients remain disease free at last follow-up. The median ipsilateral breast, planning target volume (PTV), and implant volumes were 614, 57, and 333 cm(3). The median ratios of PTV/ipsilateral breast volume (implant excluded) and PTV/total volume (implant included) were 9 and 6%. Conclusion: These 16 breast cancer cases with prior bilateral augmentation treated with EB-APBI demonstrate favorable clinical outcomes. Further exploration of EB-APBI as a treatment option for this patient population is warranted.