Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Irradiación parcial de la mama versus radioterapia en toda la mama para el cáncer de mama temprano

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007077.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 30 agosto 2021see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Cáncer de mama

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Brigid E Hickey

    Radiation Oncology Raymond Terrace, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

    School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

  • Margot Lehman

    Correspondencia a: School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    [email protected]

    Division of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

Contributions of authors

ML, BH and DF wrote the protocol.

BH extracted data, created 'Risk of bias' tables and 'Characteristics of included studies' table, analysed the data, wrote the results section and discussion, and responded to editorial and peer review (in consultation with ML).

ML checked the analyses, risk of bias tables, collaborated with writing the results, discussion and conclusion sections.

AS checked the extracted data and ran the search strategy.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Nil, Australia

    Nil

External sources

  • Princess Alexandra Cancer Collaborative Group, Australia

    Financial support for research assistant

  • This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cochrane Incentive Award 2020 (NIHR 133261). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care, UK, UK

    Financial support to update the review

Declarations of interest

ML: none.

BH: none.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Princess Alexandra Hospital Cancer Collaborative Group.

We acknowledge the input from Adrienne See and David Francis for their help with our search strategy and running searches.

We thank Erin Fergus for help in resolving disagreements with respect to assessment of risk of bias.

We are grateful for peer review input from:

  1. Clinical Associate Professor Kirsty Stuart, Department of Radiation Oncology, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead, NSW; Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead, NSW; Western Clinical School, The University of Sydney, NSW Australia.

  2. Rebecca Seago‐Coyle Consumer editor of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group.

  3. Sara Whiting, National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC), USA.

  4. A statistical reviewer who wishes to name anonymous (Australia).

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Aug 30

Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer

Review

Brigid E Hickey, Margot Lehman

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007077.pub4

2016 Jul 18

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

Review

Brigid E Hickey, Margot Lehman, Daniel P Francis, Adrienne M See

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007077.pub3

2014 Jun 18

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

Review

Margot Lehman, Brigid E Hickey, Daniel P Francis, Adrienne M See

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007077.pub2

2008 Apr 23

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

Protocol

Margot Lehman, Brigid E Hickey, Daniel P Francis

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007077

Differences between protocol and review

We amended our inclusion criteria to ensure only studies using contemporary radiation techniques were eligible. Two studies that were included in the original 2008 publication were excluded (Dodwell 2005; Ribeiro 1993) from the 2016 (Hickey 2016) and 2021 updates. This was because the surgery and techniques used to define volume of breast treated and the technology used in these two studies do not reflect current radiotherapy (RT) practice.

We reported time‐to‐event data where possible for cancer‐related outcomes. We reported local relapse‐free survival (LR‐FS) rather than local relapse (LR), distant metastasis‐free survival (DM‐FS) rather than distant metastases (DM), we reported locoregional relapse‐free survival (L‐R R‐FS) rather than locoregional control (LRC) as a secondary endpoint. We added the words 'elsewhere primary' to the name of the endpoint 'new primary in ipsilateral breast' because this term is used in the relevant literature, in order to add clarity for the reader.

We initially indicated that we would convert doses to their biological equivalent (BED), but have in fact used equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2). This allows numerical addition of separate components of a treatment and is more readily understood by clinical radiation oncologists because it results in numbers that can be directly related to clinical experience.

We added APBI as well as PBI: modern RT techniques that reduce the treated volume allow the use of high dose per fraction to the smaller treated volume. The ongoing studies tend to use APBI, which reflects modern RT practice, making the review results more applicable.

We added blinding to assessment of risk of bias, because the lack of blinding for the primary outcome of cosmesis would be a significant cause of bias. We added an additional database (i.e. Embase) and trial registry (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to our search strategy, and also handsearched other resources. This ensured that our searches were as comprehensive as possible, and complied with Cochrane search requirements.

We included studies with women with ductal carcinoma in situ for reporting of toxicity endpoints (RAPID). ELIOT used regional nodal irradiation for those women with four or more involved nodes (5% of the cohort), we excluded ELIOT from the analysis of L‐RR‐FS.

We pooled the studies in a quantitative meta‐analysis, but excluded the older studies, which used surgical, RT and systemic management practices which do not reflect current practice. We had planned sensitivity analysis based on excluding studies that used outmoded RT and surgical techniques, but as we decided to exclude them from our analysis, we did not do so. These studies were included in the previous iteration of this review, but were removed for the 2016 update.

We corrected the list and table of excluded studies so we are now compliant with MECIR guidelines, so that this list only includes studies that might reasonably be expected to be included, but which we deemed ineligible.

Current Contents were not searched separately. The conference abstracts from the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics: proceedings of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are now available via the Embase search.

We performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding the study at high risk of 'other bias' (TARGIT); this was a post‐hoc decision.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Female; Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

original image

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.1 Local recurrence‐free survival.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.1 Local recurrence‐free survival.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.3 Overall survival.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.3 Overall survival.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.8 Cause‐specific survival.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.8 Cause‐specific survival.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.9 Distant metastasis‐free survival.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), outcome: 1.9 Distant metastasis‐free survival.

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 1: Local recurrence‐free survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 1: Local recurrence‐free survival

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 2: Cosmesis (participant‐reported)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 2: Cosmesis (participant‐reported)

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 3: Cosmesis, physician/nurse‐reported

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 3: Cosmesis, physician/nurse‐reported

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 4: Overall survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 4: Overall survival

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 5: Acute radiotherapy (RT) skin toxicity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 5: Acute radiotherapy (RT) skin toxicity

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 6: Late RT skin toxicity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 6: Late RT skin toxicity

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 7: Telangiectasia (late RT toxicity)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 7: Telangiectasia (late RT toxicity)

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 8: Fat necrosis

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 8: Fat necrosis

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 9: Subcutaneous fibrosis (late RT toxicity)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 9: Subcutaneous fibrosis (late RT toxicity)

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 10: Breast pain (late RT toxicity)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 10: Breast pain (late RT toxicity)

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 11: New primary tumours in ipsilateral breast, 'elsewhere primary'

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 11: New primary tumours in ipsilateral breast, 'elsewhere primary'

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 12: Cause‐specific survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 12: Cause‐specific survival

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 13: Distant metastasis‐free survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 13: Distant metastasis‐free survival

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 14: Relapse‐free survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 14: Relapse‐free survival

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 15: Locoregional recurrence‐free survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 15: Locoregional recurrence‐free survival

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 16: Subsequent mastectomy

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT), Outcome 16: Subsequent mastectomy

Summary of findings 1. Summary of Findings Table ‐ PBI?APBI compared to WBRT for early breast cancer

PBI/APBI compared to WBRT for early breast cancer

Patient or population: health problem or population Setting: Academic, tertiary and community practice Intervention: PBI/APBI Comparison: WBRT

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with WBRT

Risk with PBI/APBI

Local recurrence‐free survival ‐ total (LR‐FS)
follow up: range 60 months to 103 months

Low

HR 1.21
(1.03 to 1.42)

13168
(8 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE a,b,c,d

985 per 1000

982 per 1000
(979 to 985)

Cosmesis, physician/nurse‐reported
assessed with: Harvard scale
follow up: range 60 months to 8.2 years

138 per 1000

201 per 1000
(173 to 230)

OR 1.57
(1.31 to 1.87)

3652
(6 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE e,f,g

Overall survival
follow up: range 60 months to 103 months

Low

HR 0.99
(0.88 to 1.12)

13175
(8 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH c,h

949 per 1000

949 per 1000
(943 to 955)

Subcutaneous fibrosis (late RT toxicity)
assessed with: EORTC/RTOG CTCAE and NCI Version 3‐4.0
follow up: median 60 months

43 per 1000

184 per 1000
(145 to 231)

OR 5.07
(3.81 to 6.74)

3011
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE g

Cause‐specific survival (C‐SS)
follow up: range 60 months to 103 months

Low

HR 1.06
(0.83 to 1.36)

9865
(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE i,j,k

983 per 1000

982 per 1000
(977 to 986)

Distant metastasis‐free survival (DM‐FS)
follow up: range 60 months to 72.2 months

Low

HR 0.95
(0.80 to 1.13)

11033
(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE l,m,n,o

971 per 1000

972 per 1000
(967 to 977)

Subsequent mastectomy
follow up: median 60 months

97 per 1000

95 per 1000
(77 to 116)

OR 0.98
(0.78 to 1.23)

3740
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; HR: Hazard Ratio; OR: Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_416473753410884319.

a. There was considerable clinical heterogeneity with respect to radiotherapy dose, technique and use of quality assurance procedures. However, the techniques employed delivered a dose that was the same or higher in the APBI/PBI arm than the WBRT arm, which should mean the local recurrence‐free survival is better or at least the same.
b. To calculate the control risk for LR‐FS, we used the number free from local recurrence at five years.
c. Studies that contributed data for this outcome at five years: Livi, ELIOT, IMPORT, GEC‐ESTRO, Polgar, TARGIT and RAPID.
d. Downgraded one level for imprecision: confidence intervals failed to exclude harms that are clinically important and clinically unimportant.
e. One study (which contributed 47% of study weight for this outcome) was at low risk of detection bias.
f. Studies that contributed data at five years: Polgar, Livi, TARGIT, Rodriguez, RAPID and GEC‐ESTRO.
g. Downgraded one level for risk of detection bias and heterogeneity.
h. To calculate the control risk for overall survival, we used the number alive at five years.
i. To calculate the control risk for cause‐specific survival, we used the number free from breast cancer death at five years.
j. Studies that contributed data at five years: Livi, ELIOT, IMPORT, GEC‐ESTRO, Polgar and RAPID.
k. Downgraded one level for detection bias and imprecision: fewer than 300 events contributed to this outcome and confidence intervals failed to exclude both clinically important benefits and harms.
l. Confidence intervals failed to exclude clinically important benefits and unimportant harms.
m. Five studies contributed data to control event‐free rate at five years (ELIOT, GEC‐ESTRO, IMPORT, Livi and Polgar).
n. To calculate the control risk for distant metastasis‐free survival, we used the number free from metastasis at five years.
o. Downgraded one level for detection bias and imprecision.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Summary of Findings Table ‐ PBI?APBI compared to WBRT for early breast cancer
Table 1. Harvard Cosmetic Score

Cosmetic score

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Harvard Cosmetic Score
Table 2. EORTC/RTOG CTCAE

RTOG CTC

Grade I

Grade II

Grade III

Grade IV

Acute skin

Follicular, faint or dull erythema/epilation/dry desquamation/decreased sweating

Tender or bright erythema, patchy moist desquamation/moderate oedema

Confluent, moist desquamation other than skin folds, pitting oedema

Ulceration, haemorrhage, necrosis

Late skin toxicity

Slight atrophy, pigmentation change, some hair loss

Patchy atrophy, moderate telangiectasia, total hair loss

Marked atrophy, gross telangiectasia

Ulceration

Late subcutaneous fibrosis

Slight induration, loss of subcutaneous fat

Moderate fibrosis (asymptomatic)

< 10% linear field contraction

Severe induration, loss of subcutaneous tissue, linear contraction > 10%

Ulceration

CTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; EORTC: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; RTOG CTC: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Common Toxicity Criteria.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. EORTC/RTOG CTCAE
Table 3. NCI CTC 3.0

Toxicity

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Induration (subcutaneous fibrosis)

Increased density on palpation

Moderate increase in density, not interfering with ADL; marked increase in density and firmness on palpation with or without minimal retraction

Dysfunction interfering with ADL; very marked density, retraction or fixation

Telangiectasia

Few

Moderate

Many and confluent

Pain

Pain mild, not interfering with function

Moderate pain; pain or analgesics interfering with function, but not with ADL

Severe pain; pain or analgesics interfering with ADL

Disability

ADL: activities of daily living; NCI CTC: National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. NCI CTC 3.0
Table 4. EORTC/RTOG CTCAE Version 3.0

Adverse effect

Grade I

Grade II

Grade III

Grade IV

Grade V

Pain

Mild, not interfering with function

Moderate/analgesics, interferes with function, but not ADL

Severe or interferes with ADL, or both

Telangiectasia

Few

Moderate

Many or confluent, or both

Acute skin toxicity

Faint erythema or dry desquamation

Moderate‐to‐brisk erythema, patchy moist desquamation

Moist desquamation not limited to creases or skin folds, bleeding subsequent to minor trauma or abrasion

Skin necrosis or full dermal thickness ulceration

Death

Induration/fibrosis

Increased density on palpation

Moderate functional impairment, not interfering with ADL, increased density and firmness on palpation with or without minor retraction

Interferes with ADL, very marked increased density, retraction or fixation

ADL: activities of daily living; CTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; EORTC: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

CTCAE 2006.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. EORTC/RTOG CTCAE Version 3.0
Table 5. RTOG/EORTC CTCAE Version 4.0

Adverse effect

Grade I

Grade II

Grade III

Grade IV

Grade V

Subcutaneous fibrosis

Mild induration, can move skin parallel to the plane (sliding) and perpendicular to the plane (pinching up)

Moderate induration, can slide, cannot pinch up skin

Severe induration cannot slide or pinch skin

Death

Telangiectasia

< 10 % of body surface area

≥ 10% of body surface area, psychosocial impact

Pain

mild

Moderate, not limiting instrumental ADL

Severe, limiting self‐care ADL

ADL: activities of daily living; CTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; EORTC: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.
CTCAE 2009.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. RTOG/EORTC CTCAE Version 4.0
Table 6. Fat necrosis

Grade

Findings

0

No fat necrosis

1

Asymptomatic fat necrosis (only radiological or cytological findings, or both)

2

Symptomatic fat necrosis not requiring medication (palpable mass with or without mild pain)

3

Symptomatic fat necrosis requiring medication (palpable mass with significant pain)

4

Symptomatic fat necrosis requiring surgical intervention

Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Fat necrosis
Table 7. Participants

Study

Age

Stage

Margins

Tumour size

Nodal status

Surgery

Polgár 2007

After 2000, < 40 years excluded

Unifocal tumour, pT1N0‐1miM0, Grade I or II

Negative

< 2.0 cm

(< 2 mm: 1/258, ≥ 2 mm: 246/258 or had no tumour at ink: 11/258)

WLE

ELIOT

48–75 years

"Early breast cancer," "suitable for breast conservation"

Not described

≤ 2.5 cm

AD if SNBx positive

BCS

Livi 2015

> 40 years

Negative, ≥ 5 mm

≤ 2.5 cm

WLE or quadrantectomy

TARGIT

≥ 45 years

T1 and small T2N0‐1M0 invasive breast cancer, suitable for BCS, available for 10 years' follow‐up

≥ 1 mm

Re‐excision strongly advised for close or positive margins

BCS

RAPID

≥ 40 years

DCISa or invasive breast cancer

Negative

≤ 3 cm

Negative axillary nodal involvement including micrometastasis (> 0.2 mm or positive cells only identified on IHC as determined by sentinel node biopsy; axillary node dissection or clinical examination for DCIS only.

BCS

Rodríguez

≥ 60 years

Invasive ductal carcinoma (pT1‐2cNO MO), unifocal tumour, Grade I or II

< 3 mm

≤ 3 cm

IMPORT

≥ 50 years

Invasive breast cancer pT1‐2pN0 who have < 1% annual risk of local recurrence

≥ 2 mm

≤ 3 cm

0–3 nodes positive

BCS

GEC‐ESTRO

> 40 years

Stage 0, I or II pN0/pNmi breast cancer (including DCIS) no vascular invasion, unifocal or unicentric disease only, no LVINote: 60/1184 (5%) participants had DCIS

≥ 2 mm in invasive disease, 5 mm in DCIS

Lesions < 3 cm in diameter

Node negative, for DCIS alone: sentinel node biopsy optional

WLE or quadrantectomy, level I–II axillary dissection, removing ≥ 6 (preferably 10 lymph nodes)

NSABP‐B39/RTOG

> 18 years

T0‐2N0‐1M0 DCIS or invasive breast cancer

Note: 531/4216 (12%) participants had DCIS

Negative: "free of cancer, including DCSI"

Lesions < 3 cm

≤ 3 involved nodes permitted

Lumpectomy

AD: axillary dissection; BCS: breast‐conserving surgery; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; IHC: immunohistochemistry; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; SNBx: sentinel node biopsy; WLE: wide local excision.
a366/2135 participants had DCIS.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 7. Participants
Table 8. Interventions

Study

RT quality assurance

RT technique

PIB/APBI target volume definition

Polgár 2007

Postimplant CT scans were performed
for 17/87 (20%) participants to document PTV coverage

Interstitial brachytherapy (88/128)

EBRT using photons (40/128)

2‐dimensional CT‐based
treatment planning was used for all participants

PTV: excision cavity delineated by the surgical clips + 2 cm isotropic margin. For interstitial therapy: if electrons were used, 6–15 MeV were used to treat the cavity with a 2 cm margin

ELIOT

Not stated

Intraoperative electrons 6–9 MeV

CTV: quote: "decided according to the site and size of the tumour. The energy of the electron beams was selected according to the thickness of the gland measured by a graduated needle"

Livi 2015

Not stated

EBRT (IMRT)

CTV = +1 cm isotropic margin around surgical clips

PTV = CTV +10 mm isotropic margina

TARGIT

Nob

Intraoperative kV RT

3D‐CRT for WBRT

The target volume was the tumour cavityc

RAPID

Yesd

EBRT (3D‐CRT)

APBI: 3–5 non‐coplanar fields

CTV = tumour bed on CT (surgical clips plus a 1‐cm margin inside breast
tissue)

PTV = CTV +1 cm isotropic margin

Rodríguez

Not stated

EBRT (3D‐CRT)

PTV was defined by contouring the same quadrant as the primary tumor sitee

IMPORT

Yesf

Field‐in‐field IMRT

Tumour bed, surgical clipsg recommended

GEC‐ESTRO

Yesh

HDR or PDR multicatheter brachytherapy

PBI: tumour bedi +2 cm isotropic margin

NSABP‐B39/RTOG

Quote: "Every institution's RT facilities were quality assessed and each case of APBI was centrally reviewed for RT quality." Benchmarking performed with "dummy run"

HDR brachytherapyj

APBI EBRT: 3D‐CRTk (IMRT not permitted).

WBRT: 3D‐CRT (IMRT not permitted)

No RNI permitted

WBRT: entire ipsilateral breast

APBI: CTV = cavity = PTV

Study

RT quality assurance

RT technique

Target volume definition

3D‐CRT: 3‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy; APBI: accelerated partial breast irradiation; CRT: conformal radiotherapy; CT: computer tomography; CTV: clinical target volume; EBRT: external beam radiotherapy; HDR: high‐dose rate; IMRT: intensity‐modulated radiotherapy; PDR: pulsed‐dose rate; PIB: partial breast irradiation; PTV: planning target volume; RNI: regional nodal irradiation; RT: radiotherapy; WBRT: whole breast radiotherapy.

aThe surgeons were requested to place clips at the borders of the surgical bed, using a minimum of four clips. CTV was drawn on a planning CT (0.3 mm slices) with a uniform 1 cm margin around the surgical clips, then a 1 cm margin added to construct the PTV.
bFor the WBRT component of TARGIT, as long as treating centres conformed to a formal quality management system issued by the International Standards Organisation, no additional quality assurance was required. For the APBI, quality assurance was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions and the resulting data to be made available to the trials centre. Data were submitted either annually or after every 50th participant treated with Intrabeam.
cQuote: "The appropriately sized (1.5–5.0 cm diameter) applicator is placed in the tumour bed using a meticulous surgical technique, including a carefully inserted purse‐string suture that ensures that breast tissues at risk of local recurrence receive the prescribed dose while skin and deeper structures are protected. Radiation is delivered over 20–45 min to the tumour bed. The surface of the tumour bed typically receives 20 Gy that attenuates to 5–7 Gy at 1 cm depth."
dBefore study opening, physicians' tumour bed contouring and centres' APBI planning were credentialed. Centres completed real‐time review of at least 10 APBI patient cases before treatment and final review of all patient cases.
eTo avoid interobserver variability, this was performed by the same radiation oncologist. Surgical clips were not available at the institution at the time.
fBaseline questionnaire completed by centre, UK Radiotherapy Trial Quality Assurance (RTQA) validated the treatment technique, a phantom was used, all plans and data sets collected and stored at RTQA, every 10th enrolled participant was selected at random to have thermo‐luminescent dosimetry measurements, which were sent to RTQA.
gIf no clips had been inserted, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or CT was used. If no localisation procedure had been done, study entry was permitted if the clinician was confident that clinical localisation was accurate.
hBoth pre‐ and postimplant assessment of geometry using CT, dose prescription and calculations were in accordance with International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 58 and strict dose volume histogram and dose maximums were mandated, the post‐hoc quality assurance requirements were clearly detailed in the study protocol (GEC‐ESTRO).
iTumour bed localised using clips, preoperative mammographic and ultrasound imaging and planning scan.
jHDR multicatheter, HDR single entry (MammoSite single‐lumen, MammoSite multi‐lumen, Contura multi‐lumen balloon).
k10 fractions, given with six‐hour gap on five treatment days within an eight‐day period.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 8. Interventions
Table 9. Brachytherapy cosmetic score

Score

Definition

Excellent

Perfect symmetry, no visible distortion or skin changes and no visible catheter entry/exit sequelae

Good

Slight skin distortion, retraction or oedema, any visible telangiectasia, any visible catheter entry/exit scar or mild hyperpigmentation

Fair

Moderate distortion of the nipple or breast symmetry, moderate hyperpigmentation, or prominent skin retraction, oedema or telangiectasia

Poor

Marked distortion, oedema, fibrosis or severe hyperpigmentation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 9. Brachytherapy cosmetic score
Table 10. Radiotherapy doses prescribed

Trial

PBI/APBI dose

Fraction size (Gy)

EQD2 PBI/APBI

alpha/beta = 4

Control dose

Fraction size (Gy)

EQD2 Control

alpha/beta = 4

TARGIT

20 Gy at surface of the applicator (attenuated to 5–7 Gy at 1 cm) (APBI)

80 at cavity surface

12.8 at 1 cm

80 Gy at cavity

surface

12.8 Gy at 1 cm

40–56 Gy/20–28 fractions ± 10–16 Gy boost

2

40–56 Gy ±

10–16 Gy

Livi 2015

30 Gy/5 daily fractions EBRT IMRT. 100% of the PTV was covered by 95% of the prescribed dose

6

50 Gy

50 Gy/25 fractions + 10 Gy/5 fractions boost

2

50 + 10 = 60 Gy

RAPID

38.5 Gy/10 fractions twice daily (with 6‐hour gap)

Dose‐evaluation volume (that part of PTV within the breast) received 95–107% of prescription dose

3.85

49.4 Gy

50 Gy/25 fractions or 42.5 Gy/16 fractions ± boost (10 Gy/4–5 fractions) based on criteria such as young age or close margins, prespecified by centre

2 or 2.65

50 Gy or 47.1 Gy

Rodríguez

37.5 Gy/10 fractions twice daily (with 6‐hour gap) (APBI). PTV covered by ≥ 95% of prescribed dose, with < 105% hot spot

3.75

47.48 Gy

48 Gy/24 fractions ± 10 Gy/5 fractions boost

2

48 ± 10 = 48–58 Gy

Polgár 2007

7 × 5.2 Gy HDR (APBI) or 50 Gy/25 fractions (PBI)
Women unsuitable for HDR had 6–15 MeV beam to tumour bed plus 2 cm margin (field size defined using CT‐planning or simulation films)

5.2 or 2

57.5 Gy or 50 Gy

50 Gy/25 fractions (3D‐CRT was not used)

2

50 Gy

GEC‐ESTRO

30.3 Gy/7 fractions or 32 Gy/8 fractions HDR twice daily or 50 Gy at 0.6–0.8 Gy/hour pulses (1 pulse per hour, 24 hours per day) PDR

7–8

41.64–42.67 Gy

50.0–50.4 Gy to a reference point + 10 Gy/5 fractions boost. Electron dose was prescribed to the point of maximum dose on the beam axis (Dmax), ensuring the 85% isodose encompassed the tumour bed

1.8–2.0

48.72–50 + 10 = 58.72–60 Gy

ELIOT

21 Gy/1 fraction at 90% using 6–9 MeV

21

84 Gy

50 Gy/25 fractions + 10 Gy/5 fractions boost (using electrons)

2.0

50 + 10 Gy

IMPORT

40 Gy/15 fractions (EBRT)

2.72

45.23

40 Gy/15 fractions

36 Gy/15 fractions + boost 40 Gy/15 fractions

2.72

2.4

45.23

38.4 + 45.23

3D‐CRT: 3‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy; APBI: accelerated partial breast irradiation; CT: computer tomography; EBRT: external beam radiotherapy; EQD2: equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions; Gy: Gray; HDR: high‐dose‐rate; IMRT: intensity‐modulated radiotherapy; MeV: mega electron volt; PBI: partial breast irradiation; PDR: pulsed‐dose rate; PTV: planning target volume.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 10. Radiotherapy doses prescribed
Table 11. Outcomes

Study

Mammography

Radiotherapy toxicity

Patient‐reported outcomes (PRO)

Cosmesis

Polgár 2007

At 6 months, then annually

Acute: CTCAEa

Late: EORTC/RTOGb and LENT‐SOMAc

Not assessed

Harvard Cosmetic Scored

ELIOT

Annually

LENT‐SOMAc

Not assessed

Not assessed

Livi 2015

Annually

Acute and late: EORTC/RTOGb

EORTC QLQ‐C30e

QLQ‐BR23 breast cancer modulef

Harvard Cosmetic Scored

TARGIT

Annually

Acute: nil

Late: EORTC/RTOG,b LENT‐SOMA,c CTCAEa

EORTC QLQ‐C30e

QLQ‐BR23 breast cancer module

Body‐image scale

Clinician and nurse assessed

RAPID

Annually

Acute and late: NCI version 3.0

EORTC QLQ‐C30e

QLQ‐BR23 breast cancer module

Body‐image scale

EORTC/RTOG Rating Systemg

Rodríguez

Baseline 6 months after RT than annually

Late: EORTC/RTOGb

Not assessed

Harvard Cosmetic Scored

IMPORT

Annually 1–5 years,

3 yearly to 10 years

Symptomatic rib fracture

and lung fibrosis

Ischaemic heart disease

recorded at 1, 2, 5 and

10 years' follow‐up

EORTC QLQ‐C30e

QLQ‐BR23 breast cancer module

Body‐image scale

protocol‐specific questionsh

HADS scale

EuroQol EQ‐5D‐3L health status questionnaire

at baseline; 6 months; 1, 2 and 5 years

Patient‐ and

clinician‐assessedi

Photosj

GEC‐ESTRO

At 6, 12, 18, 24 months after radiotherapy then annually for 10 years

Fat necrosis measured using Lövey scoring systemk

Physician scored late toxicity

Acute radiotherapy toxicity: CTCAE version 3.0a

LENT‐SOMAc

Late RT toxicity: EORTC/RTOGb

Breast pain and arm lymphoedema measured by CTCAE version 3.0a

EORTC QLQ‐C30e and QLQ‐BR23 at baseline and during follow‐up

Harvard Cosmetic Scored

Physician‐ and patient‐reported

Digital photosl

NSABP‐B39/RTOG

Annually

Acute radiotherapy toxicity: CTCAE version 4.0

Late RT toxicity: CTCAE version 4.0

Not assessed

Physician reported

CTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; EORTC: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; EORTC QLQ‐C30: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EORTC QLQ‐BR23: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Breast Specific Module; EORTC/RTOG: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; LENT‐SOMA: late effects in normal tissues – subjective objective, management and analytic; RT: radiotherapy.

aTrotti 2013.
bRubin 1995.
cAnon 1995.
dHarvard Cosmetic Score uses a four‐point scale: excellent, good, fair or poor (Harris 1979).
eThe EORTC QLQ‐C30 includes nine multi‐item scales: five functional (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, pain and nausea‐vomiting) and a global health status (GHS) health‐related quality of life scale. There are six single‐item symptom measures: insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea and financial difficulties). The symptom measures are scored on a four‐point scale, with high scores representing a higher symptom burden. The GHS scale is scored using a visual analogue scale: one (very bad) to seven (excellent), so a higher score on GHS or the functional scale is good (Aaronson 1998).
fThe BR23 module uses 23 questions to assess symptoms, treatment adverse effects, body image, sexual function and future perspective using five multi‐item scales. The symptom measures are scored on a four‐point scale, so high scores represent a higher symptom burden. The other aspects are scored so a higher score is better (Sprangers 1996).
gThe EORTC/RTOG Rating System is a four‐point scale, assessed by trained nurses, physicians and participant‐reported outcomes (Aaronson 1998).
hHas skin appearance changed, overall breast appearance changed, breast become smaller, breast become harder or firmer to touch, is shoulder stiffness present?
iBreast shrinkage, distortion, induration, breast oedema, telangiectasia assessed using four‐point scale (not at all, a little, quite a bit and very much). Photos taken at baseline and 2 and 5 years.
jPhotos scored as showing no change, mild or marked change in breast appearance at 2 and 5 years compared with baseline by three observers masked to treatment allocation using a validated consensus method (Haviland 2008).
kLövey 2007.
lDigital photos assessed using a validated consensus method by three observers masked to treatment allocation.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 11. Outcomes
Comparison 1. Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Local recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot

8

13168

(Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [1.03, 1.42]

1.1.1 5 years' follow‐up

5

8265

(Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.99, 1.45]

1.1.2 10 years' follow‐up

3

4903

(Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.92, 1.64]

1.2 Cosmesis (participant‐reported) Show forest plot

2

2775

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.08 [1.68, 2.57]

1.3 Cosmesis, physician/nurse‐reported Show forest plot

6

3652

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [1.31, 1.87]

1.4 Overall survival Show forest plot

8

13175

Hazard Ratio (Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.88, 1.12]

1.5 Acute radiotherapy (RT) skin toxicity Show forest plot

4

3925

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.66, 0.88]

1.6 Late RT skin toxicity Show forest plot

3

3465

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.27 [1.63, 3.15]

1.7 Telangiectasia (late RT toxicity) Show forest plot

2

3010

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.40 [3.34, 5.80]

1.8 Fat necrosis Show forest plot

4

3565

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.76 [1.74, 4.38]

1.9 Subcutaneous fibrosis (late RT toxicity) Show forest plot

2

3011

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.07 [3.81, 6.74]

1.10 Breast pain (late RT toxicity) Show forest plot

2

3012

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [1.15, 2.86]

1.11 New primary tumours in ipsilateral breast, 'elsewhere primary' Show forest plot

4

5144

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.82 [1.55, 5.12]

1.12 Cause‐specific survival Show forest plot

7

9865

Hazard Ratio (Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.83, 1.36]

1.13 Distant metastasis‐free survival Show forest plot

7

11033

Hazard Ratio (Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.80, 1.13]

1.14 Relapse‐free survival Show forest plot

6

11756

Hazard Ratio (Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [1.05, 1.48]

1.15 Locoregional recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot

5

6718

Hazard Ratio (Exp[(O‐E) / V], Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [1.06, 1.74]

1.16 Subsequent mastectomy Show forest plot

3

3740

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.78, 1.23]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Partial breast irradiation (PBI)/accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) versus whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT)