Increased Rates of Long-Term Complications after MammoSite Brachytherapy Compared with Whole Breast Radiation Therapy
Due to its short duration of therapy and low rates of local recurrence, women undergoing breast conservation are increasingly opting for partial breast irradiation with the MammoSite (Cytyc/Hologic) catheter. In early follow-up studies, few complications were reported. Few data, however, exist regarding longer-term complications. We compared the long-term local toxicities of MammoSite partial breast irradiation with those resulting from whole breast radiation.
This was a retrospective study performed in a single academic medical center. All patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery between 2003 and 2008, who met institutional criteria for brachytherapy, were included. We compared women treated with MammoSite with patients treated with whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT). Endpoints included incidence of palpable masses at the lumpectomy site, telangiectasias, and local recurrence.
Seventy-one MammoSite patients and 245 WBRT patients were well matched with regard to clinical characteristics. Median follow-up was 4 years. A palpable mass developed at the site of lumpectomy in 27% of the MammoSite patients compared with 7% of the WBRT patients (p < 0.0001). Telangiectasias developed more frequently in the MammoSite group than in the WBRT group (24% vs 4%, p < 0.001). Forty-two percent of patients treated with MammoSite developed a palpable mass, telangectasia, or both.
Palpable masses and telangiectasias are frequent long-term complications after MammoSite brachytherapy and occur at a significantly higher rate after MammoSite brachytherapy than after WBRT. This increased rate of long-term local toxicity should be considered when counseling women on options for adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery.
Available from: Mathieu Gautier
- "The author advised “prompt caution over widespread application of breast brachytherapy”. This assertion is acceptable if we consider brachytherapy technique based on a balloon device (Mammosite™) but not if HIBT is used [36-38]. Recently, the same authors concluded, in an observational study, that brachytherapy shows lesser breast preservation benefit compared with EBRT and that the ASTRO suitability criteria identify patients with the lowest absolute, but not relative, risk of mastectomy . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To evaluate clinical outcome after accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in the elderly after high-dose-rate interstitial multi-catheter brachytherapy (HIBT).
Methods and materials
Between 2005 and 2013, 70 patients underwent APBI using HIBT. Catheter implant was performed intra or post-operatively (referred patients) after lumpectomy and axillary sentinel lymph node dissection. Once the pathological results confirmed the indication of APBI, planification CT-scan was performed to deliver 34 Gy/10f/5d or 32 Gy/8f/4d. Dose-volume adaptation was manually achieved (graphical optimization). Dosimetric results and clinical outcome were retrospectively analyzed. Physician cosmetic evaluation was reported.
With a median follow-up of 60.9 months [4.6 – 90.1], median age was 80.7 years [62 – 93.1]. Regarding APBI ASTRO criteria, 61.4%, 18.6% and 20% were classified as suitable, cautionary and non-suitable respectively. Axillary sentinel lymph node dissection was performed in 94.3%; 8 pts (11.5%) presented an axillary involvement. A median dose of 34 Gy [32 – 35] in 8 to 10 fractions was delivered. Median CTV was 75.2 cc [16.9 – 210], median D90 EQD2 was 43.3 Gy [35 – 72.6] and median DHI was 0.54 [0.19 – 0.74]. One patient experienced ipsilateral recurrence (5-year local free recurrence rate: 97.6%. Five-year specific and overall survival rates were 97.9% and 93.2% respectively. Thirty-four patients (48%) presented 47 late complications classified grade 1 (80.8%) and grade 2 (19.2%) with no grade ≥ 3. Cosmetic results were considered excellent/good for 67 pts (95.7%).
APBI using HIBT and respecting strict rules of implantation and planification, represents a smart alternative between no post-operative irradiation and whole breast irradiation delivered over 6 consecutive weeks.
Radiation Oncology 05/2014; 9(1):115. DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-9-115 · 2.55 Impact Factor
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 01/2014; 190(2). DOI:10.1007/s00066-013-0524-x · 2.91 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to report the 5-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using external beam three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT).
Between 2006 and 2011, 44 patients with low-risk, stage I-II breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery. Postoperative APBI was given by means of 3D-CRT using three to five non-coplanar fields. The total dose of APBI was 36.9 Gy (nine fractions of 4.1 Gy b.i.d.). The mean follow-up time was 58.2 months for surviving patients. Survival results, side effects, and cosmetic results were assessed.
One (2.3 %) local recurrence was observed, for a 5-year actuarial rate of 3.7 %. Neither regional nor distant failure was observed. Two patients died of internal disease. The 5-year disease-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival rates were 96.3, 100, and 95.1 %, respectively. Acute side effects included grade 1 (G1) erythema in 75 %, G1 parenchymal induration in 46 %, and G1 pain in 46 % of patients. No G2 or higher acute side effect occurred. Late side effects included G1, G2, and G3 fibrosis in 44, 7, and 2 % of patients, respectively, G1 skin pigmentation in 12 %, and G1 pain in 2 %. Asymptomatic fat necrosis occurred in 14 %. Cosmetic results were rated excellent or good in 86 % of cases by the patients themselves and 84 % by the physicians.
The 5-year local tumor control, toxicity profile, and cosmetic results of APBI delivered with external beam 3D-CRT are encouraging and comparable to other APBI series.
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 03/2014; 190(5). DOI:10.1007/s00066-014-0633-1 · 2.91 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.