How Developments In Breast Cancer Research Have Improved Treatment In The Last Thirty Years

We want to feature a recent study by Rufus Mark, MD, Gail Lebovic, MD, Valerie Gorman, MD, Oscar Calvo, PhD. on recent developments in Breast Cancer Treatment.

Here is a layperson’s summary.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers to affect women with about 1 in every eight women in the United States alone suffering from some form of the disease in their lifetime. In 2017, approximately 300,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, so if you are reading this article and find yourself in this situation, then you are certainly not alone.

There has been a great deal of investment and development in breast cancer treatment since the 1970’s, and there is good news. The focus of treatment, and indeed the primary methods of tackling breast cancer have changed from mastectomy to breast preservation options, including breast conserving surgery.

The transformation in treatment has been quite drastic over the last fifty years. Mastectomies gave way to external radiation therapy (XRT) which focused on the entire breast, daily for six weeks. This then evolved to daily radiation of the full breast for a three week period. There is always potential risks involved with any form of intensive radiation treatment, and so the next progression involved accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for five days. In 2018 Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for one day, has now become the preferred option.

For women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018, the treatment is significantly less invasive, takes place over a much shorter period, and does not involve such life-altering surgery. Let’s examine in more detail the positive aspects of treatment in 2018.

Many women can keep the majority of their breast, which then provides further options for reconstruction moving forward.

• Dealing with the after-effects of breast cancer is psychologically and mentally challenging as well, particularly where a mastectomy was required with a constant reminder of the cancer visible, every time a woman sees herself naked. With a lumpectomy or intraoperative radiation therapy, the majority of the breast remains. This helps to retain body confidence, and reduce the psychological effects.
• Not as invasive as a mastectomy – A mastectomy is a highly invasive, significant piece of surgery. Recovery times are substantial with many women taking between three and six weeks to recover fully.

As with most things involving medical procedures, there are some negative aspects to Intraoperative radiation therapy, although most patients feel the potential benefits far outweigh the negatives. The two main issues with this treatment are the possibility of erythema, which is a reddening of the skin, caused by an increase in blood flow in superficial capillaries. There is also an increased risk of a change in sensation in the affected areas.

Texas Breast Cancer will sit down with you to discuss all your options regarding treatment for breast cancer. As the patient, it is essential for you to make the final decision, guided by your the wisdom of Dr. Gorman. The good news? For most women, there are significant benefits to the new types of treatment versus 30, 10 or even 5 years ago.

Download the full academic articles for tables and images. 

Here is the academic article.

EVOLUTION OF BREAST CONSERVATION RADIATION TREATMENT TECHNIQUES IN BREAST CANCER :

FROM 6 WEEKS TO 3 WEEKS TO 1 WEEK TO 1 DAY AND FROM WHOLE BREAST TO PARTIAL BREAST

By Rufus Mark, MD, Gail Lebovic, MD, Valerie Gorman, MD, Oscar Calvo, PhD

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in women. About 1 in 8 women in the United States will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetime. It has been estimated that in 2017, over 300,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States. Of these cases, 252,710 would be invasive cancer and 63,410 pre-invasive ductal carcinoma in situ. About 40,610 women were expected to die from breast cancer [1]. Over the past 50 years the primary treatment of breast cancer has expanded from Mastectomy (M) to breast preservation options including breast conserving surgery + Radiation Therapy (RT). RT options have evolved from External Radiation Therapy (XRT) to the whole breast given daily for 6 weeks, to XRT to the whole breast given daily for 3 weeks, to Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) given over 5 days, and now Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) given in 1 day.

Historically, the most common treatment for breast cancer was M. In the 1970s investigators combined breast conserving surgery or Lumpectomy (L) with XRT to the whole breast with results which appeared comparable to M. XRT radiation dosimetry coverage of the breast is illustrated in Figure 1. Multiple randomized trials demonstrated that Modified Radical Mastectomy (MRM) offered no statistically significant difference (NSD) over L + XRT in regard to overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and local-regional recurrence (LRR) [2-7]. Follow-Up (F/U) ranged from 6-13 years. These trials are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1

EARLY STAGE BREAST CANCER RANDOMIZED TRIALS

M vs. L + XRT

Download the PDF version of this article to view the full table.

 

The NSABP reported the same conclusions with 20 year follow-up [8].

Based on all of the preceding data, the National Institutes of Health convened an expert panel which discussed breast cancer in 1990 [9]. They issued a consensus statement, which read

“Breast Conservation Treatment is an appropriate method of primary therapy for the majority of women with Stage I/II breast cancer, and is preferable because it provides survival equivalent to total mastectomy and axillary node dissection, while preserving the breast.”

 

More recent years witnessed the shortening (hypofractionation) of XRT courses from 6 weeks to 3 weeks. Three notable randomized trials showed no significant difference (NSD) in local tumor recurrence (LR) or cosmetic results [10-12]. The data are shown below in Table 2 :

[Page 1]

TABLE 2

BREAST CONSERVATION RANDOMIZED TRIALS

HYPOFRACTIONATED XRT

Download the PDF version of this article to view the full table.

Notably, none of these trials employed a 1 week XRT boost to the tumor bed, which has been proven to decrease local tumor recurrence in a randomized trial enrolling 5,318 patients conducted by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer [13].

Further reduction in radiation treatment time was achieved with the use APBI to the partial breast using High Dose Rate (HDR) radiation implant or brachytherapy techniques in which RT was completed in 5 days. Forming the logic for APBI, investigators found that for the vast majority of breast cancer patients, RT to the whole breast was unnecessary. The major risk for local recurrence after breast conservation surgery is within 1-2 cm of the tumor bed. The risk of recurrence outside of this region was termed “elsewhere recurrence.” As noted above, XRT had been proven to reduce recurrence risk to rates comparable to M. However, XRT did not seem to significantly reduce the risk of elsewhere recurrence. This formed the logic of partial breast irradiation [14]. The data which led to this conclusion are summarized below in Table 3.

TABLE 3

INCIDENCE OF LOCAL RECURRENCE OUTSIDE THE TUMOR BED

RANDOMIZED TRIALS L vs. L + XRT

Download the PDF version of this article to view the full table.

At least two randomized trials published to date have confirmed the results with APBI HDR in 5 days are comparable to daily XRT for 6 weeks with respect to LR and cosmesis [19-20]. These results are summarized below in Table 4.

[Page 2]

TABLE 4

BREAST CONSERVATION

RANDOMIZED TRIALS RESULTS OF APBI HDR vs. XRT

Download the PDF version of this article to view the full table.

Regarding HDR Implant, four techniques with significant clinical experience have been established : Mammosite Balloon, Contura Balloon, SAVI Strut, and Multi-plane interstitial catheter. The Mammosite Balloon method is the simplest, but not always successful. Three technical problems were recognized. Firstly, the Balloon can rupture. Secondly, the Balloon may not conform to the surgical cavity resulting in radiation dose inhomogeneity and under treatment of areas at risk for tumor recurrence. Thirdly, the catheter may not remain centered in the Balloon, again resulting in radiation dose inhomogeneity and under treatment of areas at risk for tumor recurrence. Contura Balloon method minimized these problems. The SAVI technique achieved further improvement by utilizing a flexible strut apparatus which can be adjusted to fit the surgical cavity and treat larger lesions. With the Balloon and SAVI options, the devices can be placed at the time of surgery, thereby sparing the patient an added implant procedure. The Multi-Plane interstitial catheter technique offers the most flexibility of all the HDR options, but requires another invasive procedure, and is the most labor intensive method. Radiation dosimetry flexibility is progressively improved with the number of catheters and dwell positions. Therefore, dosimetry improves progressively from Mammosite (1 Catheter in Figure 2), to Mammosite (Multiple Dwell positions in Figure 3), to Contura (5 Catheters in Figure 4 and 5), SAVI (up to 11 Catheters in Figure 6), to Multi-Catheter (no set limit on Catheters in Figure 7).

With respect to APBI HDR brachytherapy complications, Smith et al, reviewed 6,952 APBI HDR implant cases between 2003 and 2007 registered in the Medicare Database [21]. The authors reported 3.95% patients required mastectomy, 16.2% developed infections, and 16.3% experienced non-infection complications which included rib fractures, fat necrosis, and breast pain. All of these complications were significantly higher than in patients who underwent XRT to the whole breast (p<0.001). Most of these complications occurred with Mammosite and Contura implant devices. There was no difference in survival.

APBI has been performed using non-invasive techniques like Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) or Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Livi et al, randomized 520 patients with Stage I/II breast cancer to receive APBI IMRT/SBRT vs. XRT [22]. Eligible patients included women older than 40 years of age and tumors < 2.5 cm. Notably, DCIS, angiovascular invasion, and involved axillary nodes were not exclusion criteria. The IMRT/SBRT dose regimen was 3000 cGy in 5 daily fractions vs. 6000 cGy in 30 daily fractions with XRT. With a median follow-up of 5 years, LR was 1.5% in both groups (p=0.86). There also was no significant difference in 5 year overall survival, 96.6% with XRT vs. 99.4% with APBI IMRT/SBRT (p=0.06). APBI IMRT/SBRT was superior to XRT with respect to acute radiation side effects (p=0.0001), late effects (p=0.004), and cosmetic outcome (p=0.045).

[Page 3]

Finally, APBI has been performed using Intra-Operative Radiation Therapy (IORT) in 1 fraction. Two randomized trials have reported favorable LR results, though inferior to daily XRT

x 6 weeks [23-24]. The results are summarized below in Table 5.

TABLE 5

BREAST CONSERVATION

RANDOMIZED TRIAL RESULTS OF IORT x 1 day vs. XRT x 6 weeks

Download the PDF version of this article to view the full table.

 

IORT has a number of disadvantages. Firstly, LR has been slightly higher than with whole breast XRT. This could be due to the limited technology of the IORT radiation delivery systems. IMRT/SBRT gives much more flexibility in radiation delivery whereby larger tumors and irregular cavities can be safely covered. Secondly, IORT is delivered before final surgical pathology results are available. In the TARGIT Trial, 21.6% of patients in the IORT arm received whole breast XRT because of adverse pathology findings including positive surgical margins and positive lymph nodes. Thirdly, seroma and fat necrosis are not unusual with IORT. In the ELIOT Trial, 16% of IORT patients developed fat necrosis.

As noted above, APBI IMRT/SBRT has been done in 5 days with results comparing favorably to whole breast XRT x 6 weeks. The targeting and subsequent treatment technique calls for insertion of fiducial markers to outline the surgical cavity. This can be done with individual fiducial insertion which can be time consuming and challenging technically. Another method involves placement of a series of fiducials inside of a prepared device called Biozorb. The Biozorb device is then placed inside the surgical cavity. Investigators have published favorable results with the use of Biozorb [25]. Cross et al, reported excellent targeting results in 108 patients who underwent Biozorb fiducial placement for radiation treatment targeting. Seven of these patients underwent APBI SBRT. Biozorb fiducial devices are shown in Figure 8. Biozorb placement for a patient is shown in Figure 9. Radiation treatment planning targeted to Biozorb is shown in Figure 10.

Cosmetic results after breast conservation XRT given daily x 6 weeks have been reported as good to excellent in 80-90% of cases as reported by both patients and physicians [26-29]. Examples are shown in Figures 11 and 12. However, at least 90% of patients experience Grade 2 or higher XRT skin reactions manifested by erythema, dry or moist desquamation [30]. An example is given in Figure 13. While these reactions typically heal like a routine sunburn within a few weeks after completing XRT (See Figure 14), long-term cosmetic results can be poor as shown in Figure 15. Significant decreased radiation exposure to the skin and whole breast thru the use of APBI/SBRT has been shown in a randomized trial summarized above. The result of this improved dosimetry with APBI/SBRT has been shown in turn, to reduce radiation acute effects including skin reactions, radiation late effects, and achieve better long-term cosmesis. In the APBI/SBRT group only 2.0% patients had Grade 2 or higher skin reactions [22]. Maximum radiation doses are considerably reduced with APBI/SBRT (D_m < 105%) compared to APBI/HDR (V 200 < 10%). APBI/SBRT case examples are shown Figure 16 and 17.

[Page 4]

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for breast conservation RT currently include XRT x 6 weeks, XRT x 3 weeks, APBI HDR x 5 days, and APBI XRT x 5 days, in the pathways for breast conservation RT. Based on the most recent data, APBI IMRT/SBRT should be incorporated soon. Current data in a randomized trial have shown that with APBI IMRT/SBRT, patients can undergo non-invasive breast conservation RT in 5 days with excellent cosmetic results superior to XRT x 6 weeks. We believe APBI IMRT/SBRT targeted to Biozorb can be done in 1 day.

 

Download the PDF version of this article to view the figures. 

Figure 1 Figure 2

[Page 5]

Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

[Page 6]

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8

[Page 7]

Figure 9 Figure 10Figure 11

[Page 8]

Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14

[Page 9] Figure 15 Figure 16

References:

1. www.breastcancer.org; January 4, 2018
2. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1989;320:822-8.
3. Sarrazin D, Le MG, Arriagada R, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing a conservative treatment to mastectomy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 1989;14:177-84.
4. Veronesi U, Banfi A, Salvadori B, et al. Breast conservation is the treatment of choice in small breast cancer: long-term results of a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer 1990;26:668-70.
5. van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer: EORTC 10801 trial. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1992;11:15-8.
6. Blichert-Toft M, Rose C, Andersen JA, et al. Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life-table analysis. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1992;11:19-25.
7. Jacobson J, Danforth D, Cowan K, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332:907-11.88. 8. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy, Lumpectomy, and Lumpectomy plus Irradiation for the Treatment of Invasive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1233-41.
8. Wood W, Barringer T, Daly J, et al. Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer. NIH Consensus Statement 1990 Jun 18-21;8(6)1-19.
9. Bentzen S, Agrawal R, Aird E, et al. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2008 Apr;9(4):331-41.
10. Bentzen S, Agrawal R, Aird E, et al. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2008 Mar 29; 371 (9618) : 1098-1107.
11. Owen J, Ashton A, Bliss J, et al. Effect of radiotherapy fraction size on tumour control in patients with early-stage breast cancer after local tumour excision : long-term results of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2006 ; 7[6] : 467-71.
12. Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P. Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol2015 ; 16[1] : 47-56.
13. Baglan K, Martinez A, Frazier R, et al. The use of high-dose-rate brachytherapy alone after lumpectomy in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Int J Rad Onc Bio Phys 2001 ; 50[4] : 1003-1111.
14. Fisher B, Anderson S. Conservative surgery for the management of invasive and non-invasive carcinoma of the breast : NSABP Trials. W J Surg 1994 ; 18 : 63-69.
15. Veronesi U, Luini A, Del Vecchio M, et al. Radiotherapy after breast-preserving surgery in women with localized cancer of the breast. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1587-91.
16. Liljegren G, Homlberg L, Adami H, et al. Sector resection with or without postoperative radiotherapy for stage I breast cancer: Five-year results of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 ; 86 : 717-22.
17. Clark R, McCulloch P, Levine M, et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of breast irradiation following lumpectomy and axillary dissection for node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 84 (1992), pp. 683-9.

 

Page 11

 

19. Polgar C, Fodor J, Major T, et al. Breast-conserving therapy with partial or whole breast irradiation: Ten-year results of the Budapest randomized trial. Radiother Oncol 2013 ; 108[2] : 197-202.
20. Strnad V, Ott O, Hildebrandt G, et al. 5-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation using sole interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation with boost after breast-conserving surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma of the female breast: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016 ; 387[10015] : 229-38.
21. Smith G, Xu Y, Bucholz T, et al. Association between treatment with brachytherapy vs whole-breast irradiation and subsequent mastectomy, complications, and survival among older women with invasive breast cancer. JAMA 2012 ; 307[17] : 1827-37.
22. Livi L, Meattini I, Marrazzo L, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus whole breast irradiation: 5-year survival analysis of a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer, 2015 ; 51 [4] : 451-63.
23. Vaidya J, Wenz F, Bulsara M, et al. Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial. Lancet 2014 ; 383 [9917] : 603-13.
24. Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Maisonneuve P, et al. Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet Oncol 2013 ; 14[13] : 1269-77.
25. Cross M, Lebovic G, Ross J, et al. Impact of a Novel Bioabsorbable Implant on Radiation Treatment Planning for Breast Cancer. W J Surg, 2017 ; 41 : 464-71.
26. Taylor M, Perez C, Halverson K, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995 ; 31 : 753-64.
27. Ray G, Fish V, Marmor J, et al. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on cosmesis and complications in stages I and II carcinoma of the breast treated by biopsy and radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1984 ; 10 : 837-41.
28. Markiewicz D, Fox K, Schulz D, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation for breast conservation treatment of early stage breast cancer. Cancer J Sci Am 1998 ; 4 : 185-93.
29. Beadle G, Come S, Henderson I, et al. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the cosmetic results after primary radiation treatment for early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1984 ; 10 : 2131-37.
30. Back M, Guerrieri M, Wratten C, et al. Impact of radiation therapy on acute toxicity in breast conservation therapy for early breast cancer. Clin Oncol (RColl Radiol) 2004 ; 16[1] : 12-6.

 

Page 12