Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Patients with an in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy have a high risk of distant metastasis and disease-related mortality. Classifying clinical parameters that increase risk for recurrence after IBTR remains a challenge. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To describe primary and recurrent tumor characteristics in patients who experience an IBTR and understand the relationship between these characteristics and disease outcomes. METHODS:Patients with stage 0-II breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation were identified from institutional databases of patients treated from 2003-2017 at our institution. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. We identified patients who experienced an isolated IBTR. Concordance of hormone receptor status and location of tumor from primary to recurrence was evaluated. The effect of clinical and treatment parameters on disease outcomes was also evaluated. RESULTS:= 0.004) decreased the risk of IBTR. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with early stage breast cancer who had breast conserving surgery treated with adjuvant RT, ER/PR status and quadrant were highly concordant from primary to IBTR. Tumor size greater than 1.5 cm and use of adjuvant endocrine therapy were significantly associated with decreased risk of IBTR.

Two commonly used whole breast irradiation (WBI) techniques, deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and prone positioning, are compared with regard to dosimetry and estimated late cardiac morbidity and secondary lung cancer mortality using published models. Forty patients with left-sided DCIS or breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and required adjuvant WBI were enrolled on a prospective trial comparing supine DIBH (S-DIBH) with prone free breathing (P-FB) planning. Patients underwent CT simulation in both positions; two plans were generated for each patient. Comparative dosimetry was available for 34 patients. Mean cardiac and lung doses were calculated. Risk of death from ischemic heart disease (IHD), risk of at least one acute coronary event (ACE), and lung cancer mortality were estimated from published data. Difference between S-DIBH and P-FB plans was compared using paired two-tailed t test. Estimated mean risk of death from IHD by age 80 was 0.1% (range 0.0%-0.2%) for both plans (P = 1.0). Mean risk of at least one ACE was 0.3% (range 0.1%-0.6%) for both plans (P = .6). Mean lung cancer mortality risk was 1.4% (range 0.5%-15.4%) for S-DIBH and 1.0% (range 0.4%-9.8%) for P-FB (P = .008). Excess lung cancer mortality due to radiation was 0.5% (range 0.1%-6.0%) with S-DIBH and 0.0% (range 0.0%-0.4%) with P-FB (P = .008). Both S-DIBH and P-FB provide excellent cardiac sparing. Prone positioning results in lower lung dose than S-DIBH and leads to an absolute decrease of 0.5% in excess lung cancer mortality for patients receiving WBI.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:While Ir-192 remains the mainstay isotope for gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the U.S., Co-60 is used abroad. Co-60 has a longer half-life than Ir-192, which may lead to long-term cost savings; however, its higher energy requires greater shielding. This study analyzes Co-60 acceptability based on a one-time expense of additional shielding and reports the financial experience of Co-60 in Peru's National Cancer Institute, which uses both isotopes. Material and methods/UNASSIGNED:A nationwide survey was undertaken assessing physician knowledge of Co-60 and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for additional shielding, assuming a source more cost-effective than Ir-192 was available. With 440 respondents, 280 clinicians were decision-makers and provided WTPs, with results previously reported. After completing a shielding report, we estimated costs for shielding expansion, noting acceptability to decision makers' WTP. Using activity-based costing, we note the Peruvian fiscal experience. Results/UNASSIGNED:Shielding estimates ranged from $173,000 to $418,000. The percentage of respondents accepting high-density modular or lead shielding (for union and non-union settings) were 17.5%, 11.4%, 3.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. Shielding acceptance was associated with greater number of radiation oncologists in a respondent's department but not time in practice or the American Brachytherapy Society membership. Peru's experience noted cost savings with Co-60 of $52,400 annually. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:By comparing the cost of additional shielding for a sample institution's HDR suite with radiation oncologists' WTP, this multi-institutional collaboration noted < 20% of clinicians would accept additional shielding. Despite low acceptability in the US, Co-60 demonstrates cost-favorability in Peru and may similarly in other locations.