Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:(AirXanpders®, Palo Alto, CA) tissue expander in-situ for breast cancer patients receiving post-mastectomy radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:A film phantom (P1) was constructed by placing the metallic canister of the AeroForm on a solid water phantom with EBT3 films at five depths ranging from 2.6 mm to 66.2 mm. A breast phantom (P2), a three-dimensional printed tissue-equivalent breast with fully expanded AeroForm in-situ, was placed on a thorax phantom. A total of 21 optical luminescent dosimeters (OLSDs) were placed on the anterior skin-gas interface and the posterior chest wall-metal interface of the AeroForm. Both phantoms were imaged with a 16-bit computed tomography scanner with orthopedic metal artifact reduction. P1 was irradiated with an open field utilizing 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams at 0°, 90°, and 270°. P2 was irradiated using a volumetric modulated arc therapy plan with a 6 MV photon beam and a tangential plan with a 15 MV photon beam. All doses were calculated using Eclipse (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) with AAA and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms. RESULTS:The average dose differences between film measurements and AXB in the region adjacent to the canister in P1 were within 3.1% for 15 MV and 0.9% for 6 MV. Local dose differences over 10% were also observed. In the chest wall region of P2, the median dose of OLSDs in percentage of prescription dose were 108.4% (range 95.4%-113.0%) for the 15MV tangential plan and 110.4% (range 99.1%-113.8%) for the 6MV volumetric modulated arc therapy plan. In the skin-gas interface, the median dose of the OLSDs were 102.3% (range 92.7%-107.7%) for the 15 MV plan and 108.2% (range 97.8-113.5%) for the 6 MV plan. Measured doses were, in general, higher than calculated doses with AXB calculations. The AAA dose algorithms produced results with slightly larger discrepancies between measurements compared with AXB. CONCLUSIONS:The AeroForm creates significant dose uncertainties in the chest wall-metal interface. The AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm is recommended for more accurate calculations. If possible, post-mastectomy radiation therapy should be delivered after the permanent implant is in place.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Cosmetic outcomes and rate of implant loss are poorly characterized among patients with breast cancer with previous breast augmentation (BA) who undergo breast-conservation therapy (BCT). Here we determine capsular contracture and implant loss frequency after BCT among patients receiving contemporary whole-breast radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Patients with breast cancer with a history of BA presenting to our institution from January 2006 to January 2017 who elected for BCT were included. Seventy-one breast cancers in 70 patients with a history of BA electing for BCT were retrospectively identified. Clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome variables were examined. Whole-breast RT included conventional and hypofractionated schedules with and without a boost. Rates of implant loss and cosmetic outcomes among patients who did and did not develop a new/worse contracture based on physician assessment were compared. RESULTS:In the study, 54.9% of patients received radiation using hypofractionated whole-breast tangents; 81.7% received a boost. In addition, 18 out of 71 cases (25.4%) developed a new/worse contracture after BCT with a mean follow-up of 1.9 years. Furthermore, 9 out of 71 cases (12.7%) were referred to a plastic surgeon for revisional surgery. There were no implant-loss cases. On univariate analysis, implant location, time from implant placement to diagnosis, RT type, RT boost, body mass index, and tumor size were not associated with new/worse contracture. Of 12 patients with existing contracture, only 2 developed worsening contracture. Physician assessment of cosmetic outcome after BCT was noted to be excellent or good for 87.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS:BCT for breast cancer patients with prior history of BA has a low risk of implant loss. Hypofractionated RT does not adversely affect implant outcomes. Patients should be counseled regarding risk for capsular contracture, but the majority have good/excellent outcome; BA does not represent a contraindication to BCT.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Breast radiation therapy accounts for a significant proportion of patient volume in contemporary radiation oncology practice. In the setting of anticipated resource constraints and widespread community infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic, measures for balancing both infectious and oncologic risk among patients and providers must be carefully considered. Here, we present evidence-based guidelines for omitting or abbreviating breast cancer radiation therapy, where appropriate, in an effort to mitigate risk to patients and optimize resource utilization. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Multidisciplinary breast cancer experts at a high-volume comprehensive cancer center convened contingency planning meetings over the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to review the relevant literature and establish recommendations for the application of hypofractionated and abbreviated breast radiation regimens. RESULTS:Substantial evidence exists to support omitting radiation among certain favorable risk subgroups of patients with breast cancer and for abbreviating or accelerating regimens among others. For those who require either whole-breast or postmastectomy radiation, with or without coverage of the regional lymph nodes, a growing body of literature supports various hypofractionated approaches that appear safe and effective. CONCLUSIONS:In the setting of a public health emergency with the potential to strain critical healthcare resources and place patients at risk of infection, the parsimonious application of breast radiation therapy may alleviate a significant clinical burden without compromising long-term oncologic outcomes. The judicious and personalized use of immature study data may be warranted in the setting of a competing mortality risk from this widespread pandemic.

PURPOSE:To evaluate physician-reported assessments of an established faculty orientation program for new radiation oncology physicians at a large academic center and to prospectively analyze the effects of an onboarding improvement program based on those assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS:An anonymous survey was designed and distributed to physicians new to the department who received onboarding orientation between 2013 and 2017. Survey questions addressed the comprehensiveness, effectiveness, and utility of various orientation activities. On the basis of the survey results, an improved onboarding program was designed and implemented for nine new faculty members between May 2018 and November 2018. A post-intervention survey querying topics similar to those in the pre-intervention survey was distributed to the new faculty members. Descriptive statistics were generated to compare the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups. RESULTS:The overall rate of survey completion was 85% (17 of 20). The intervention program markedly improved physician assessment of comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the onboarding process. Physicians strongly and consistently identified mentor shadowing, on-the-job training, and other faculty mentorship activities as the most important components of an effective onboarding experience. CONCLUSION:An enhanced, tailored, person-oriented, formal onboarding improvement program significantly increased physician assessment scores of comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the faculty onboarding process. This model can serve as a framework for increasing physician preparedness, encouraging early physician mentorship, and ensuring a universal standard of quality across large practices.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guidelines for the use of accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) define "suitable," "cautionary," and "unsuitable" populations for this adjuvant breast radiation therapy technique. We sought to determine whether patients in the cautionary group exhibited adverse outcomes after APBI compared with their suitable counterparts. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:We identified 252 consecutively treated patients from a single institution with in situ or early-stage invasive breast cancer who underwent APBI between 2008 and 2017. Treatment technique was uniform throughout the population, consisting of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy to 40 Gy administered in 10 daily fractions. RESULTS:One hundred seventy-eight patients (70%) were classified as suitable, 69 (27%) as cautionary, and 5 (2.0%) as unsuitable. Because unsuitable patients were few and had no recurrences, they were excluded from analysis. At a median follow-up time of 3.9 years, 97.2% of patients were free of recurrence. Four patients (1.5% overall; 3 suitable and 1 cautionary) experienced ipsilateral in-breast recurrences, and 1 cautionary patient developed an ipsilateral regional recurrence in an axillary lymph node. There was no significant difference in the rate of ipsilateral breast recurrence (2.4% vs 1.0%) between cautionary and suitable groups. CONCLUSIONS:Local recurrences are rare among guideline-defined cautionary patients with in situ or invasive breast cancer treated with APBI delivered via daily 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy to 40 Gy. At a median follow-up of 3.9 years, no significant differences in local control were noted between cautionary and suitable patient groups. Further study is needed to characterize long-term disease outcomes among various risk groups.

INTRODUCTION:A broad range of stakeholders have called for randomised evidence on the potential clinical benefits and harms of proton therapy, a type of radiation therapy, for patients with breast cancer. Radiation therapy is an important component of curative treatment, reducing cancer recurrence and extending survival. Compared with photon therapy, the international treatment standard, proton therapy reduces incidental radiation to the heart. Our overall objective is to evaluate whether the differences between proton and photon therapy cardiac radiation dose distributions lead to meaningful reductions in cardiac morbidity and mortality after treatment for breast cancer. METHODS:We are conducting a large scale, multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial for patients with breast cancer who will be followed longitudinally for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and cancer control outcomes. A total of 1278 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer will be randomly allocated to receive either photon or proton therapy. The primary outcomes are major cardiovascular events, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia or pericardial disease. Secondary endpoints are urgent or unanticipated outpatient or emergency room visits for heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease or pericardial disease. The Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Clinical Events Centre will conduct centralised, blinded adjudication of primary outcome events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The RadComp trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016. Current version of the protocol is A3, dated 08 November 2018. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02603341.

Radiation-associated cardiac disease, a heterogeneous and complex disease, manifests years or even decades following radiation exposure to the chest. It is associated with a significantly higher morbidity and mortality. Often, the presentation is vague and overlaps with many diseases, presenting unique diagnostic and management issues. As a result, a high index of suspicion followed by multimodality imaging is crucial, along with comprehensive screening to enable early detection. Timing of intervention should be carefully considered in these patients, because surgery is often complex with an emerging role of percutaneous interventions.

PURPOSE:Most studies examining accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) have used twice-daily fractionation. Cosmesis with this approach has produced mixed results, and the optimal fractionation scheme remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of APBI with a total dose of 40 Gy in 10 daily fractions. METHODS AND MATERIALS:Between 2010 and 2014, we prospectively enrolled 106 patients to receive APBI after lumpectomy for invasive or in situ node-negative breast cancer. Radiation was administered via 3-dimensional conformal techniques. RESULTS:to <45% may improve tolerability. Overall, 3 breast cancer recurrences arose: 1 local recurrence in the original quadrant (3 years after APBI), 1 in a different ipsilateral quadrant (5 years after APBI), and 1 with distant disease 2 years after APBI. CONCLUSIONS:should be carefully constrained to limit local morbidity. Longer follow-up will be needed to establish efficacy and subsequent local recurrence rates.