Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Breast reirradiation (reRT) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) has emerged as a viable alternative to mastectomy for women presenting with recurrent or new primary breast cancer. There are limited data on safety of different fractionation regimens. This study reports safety and efficacy among women treated with repeat BCS and reRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Patients who underwent repeat BCS followed by RT from 2015 to 2021 at 2 institutions were analyzed. Univariate logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of acute and late toxicities. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LR-RFS). RESULTS:Sixty-six patients were reviewed with median follow-up of 16 months (range: 3-60 months). At time of first recurrence, 41% had invasive carcinoma with a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component, 41% had invasive carcinoma alone and 18% had DCIS alone. All were clinically node negative. For the reirradiation course, 95% received partial breast irradiation (PBI) (57.5% with 1.5 Gy BID; 27% with 1.8 Gy daily; 10.5% with hypofractionation), and 5% received whole breast irradiation (1.8-2 Gy/fx), all of whom had received PBI for initial course. One patient experienced grade 3 fibrosis, and one patient experienced grade 3 telangiectasia. None had grade 4 or higher late adverse events. We found no association between the fractionation of the second course of RT or the cumulative dose (measured as EQD2) with acute or late toxicity. At 2 years, OS was 100%, DMFS was 91.6%, and LR-RFS was 100%. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this series of patients with recurrent or new primary breast cancer, a second breast conservation surgery followed by reirradiation was effective with no local recurrences and an acceptable toxicity profile across a range of available fractionation regimens at a median follow up of 16 months. Longer follow up is required.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study is to systematically review data pertaining to breast cancer and radiation-induced skin reactions in patients with skin of color (SOC), as well as data pertaining to objective measurements of skin pigmentation in the assessment of radiation dermatitis (RD). METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:We conducted a systematic review utilizing MEDLINE electronic databases to identify published studies until August 2022. Key inclusion criteria included studies that described RD in breast cancer with data pertaining to skin of color and/or characterization of pigmentation changes after radiation. RESULTS:We identified 17 prospective cohort studies, 7 cross-sectional studies, 5 retrospective studies and 4 randomized controlled trials. Prospective cohort and retrospective series demonstrate worse RD in African American (AA) patients using subjective physician-graded scales. There is more limited data in patients representing other non-White racial subgroups with SOC. 2 studies utilize patient reported outcomes and 15 studies utilize objective methods to characterize pigmentation change after radiation. There are no prospective and randomized studies that objectively describe pigmentation changes with radiotherapy in SOC. CONCLUSIONS:AA patients appear to have worse RD outcomes, though this is not uniformly observed across all studies. There are no studies that describe objective measures of RD and include baseline skin pigmentation as a variable, limiting the ability to draw uniform conclusions on the rate and impact of RD in SOC. We highlight the importance of objectively characterizing SOC and pigmentation changes before, during and after radiotherapy to understand the incidence and severity of RD in SOC.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The optimal local therapy of patients with nodal disease in supraclavicular (SCV), internal mammary nodes (IMN) and level III axilla is not well studied. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with breast cancer and advanced nodal disease that received a nodal boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:This retrospective study included 79 patients with advanced nodal disease who underwent adjuvant radiation with a nodal boost to the SCV, IMNs, and/or axilla. All patients had radiographic changes after systemic therapy concerning for gross nodal disease. Overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:All patients received an initial 50 Gy to the breast/chest wall and regional nodes, of whom 46.8% received an IMN boost, 38.0% axillary (ax)/SCV boost, and 15.2% both IMN and ax/SCV boost (IMN + ax/SCV). Most patients had hormone receptor positive (74.7%) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease (83.5%). In addition, 12.7% of patients had clinical (c) N2 disease, 21.5% cN3A disease, 51.9% cN3B disease, and 5.1% cN3C disease. Most patients received chemotherapy (97.5%). The median nodal boost dose was 10 Gy (range, 10-20 Gy), with 21.6% of IMN, 16.7% of ax/SCV, and 16.7% of IMN + ax/SCV receiving 14 to 20 Gy. With a median follow up of 30 months, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival, DFS, and overall survival rates were 94.5%, 86.3%, and 93.8%, respectively. Crude rates of failure were 13.9% (10.1% distant failure [DF] alone; 3.8% DF + locoregional failure [LRF]). Rates of failure by boost group were 13.3% for ax/SCV (10.0% DF alone; 3.3% DF + LRF), 5.4% for IMN (2.7% DF alone, 2.7% DF + LRF), and 41.7% for IMN + ax/SCV (33.3% DF, 8.3% DF + LRF). There were no LRFs without DFs. The median time to failure was 22.8 months (interquartile range, 18-34 months). Clinical tumor size and IMN + ax/SCV versus IMN or ax/SCV alone was associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 9.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.07-46.2; P = .004 and HR: 9.49; 95% CI, 2.67-33.7; P = .001, respectively). On multivariate analysis, IMN + ax/SCV versus IMN or ax/SCV alone retained significance (HR: 4.80; 95% CI, 1.27-18.13; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:In this population of patients with locally advanced breast cancer, the majority of failures were distant with no isolated LRFs. Failures were the highest in the IMN + ax/SCV group (∼40%). Further treatment escalation is necessary for these patients.

Radiotherapy omission is increasingly considered for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer. However, with emerging data on the safety and efficacy of radiotherapy de-escalation with partial breast irradiation and accelerated treatment regimens for low-risk breast cancer, it is necessary to move beyond an all-or-nothing approach. Here, we review existing data for radiotherapy omission, including the use of age, tumor subtype, and multigene profiling assays for selecting low-risk patients for whom omission is a reasonable strategy. We review data for de-escalated radiotherapy, including partial breast irradiation and acceleration of treatment time, emphasizing these regimens' decreasing biological and financial toxicities. Lastly, we review evidence of omission of endocrine therapy. We emphasize ongoing research to define patient selection, treatment delivery, and toxicity outcomes for de-escalated adjuvant therapies better and highlight future directions.

Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation dermatitis (RD) is common after RT for breast cancer with data indicating potentially worse RD in African American (AA) patients (pts). Current measures of RD, such as the CTCAE, do not include hyperpigmentation, which may disproportionately affect how RD is classified and treated in pts with skin of color (SOC). We aim to characterize RD in SOC and identify factors, including baseline skin pigmentation (BSP) that predict RD. Materials/Methods: Pts treated with whole breast (WB) or chest wall (CW) with regional nodal RT or high tangents with 50 Gy in 25 fractions from 2015-2018 were identified. Three dermatologists independently classified BSP using photographs from CT simulation based on the Fitzpatrick scale ([FS], range=I-VI; I=light/pale white to VI=black/ very dark brown). SOC was defined as FS IV-VI. Pt characteristics were investigated for association with interventions to treat RD, clinician-graded acute RD, and late skin toxicity (NCI CTCAE scale) with Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses.
Result(s): 325 pts met eligibility criteria (58 African American [AA], 42 Asian, 151 Caucasian, 77 other). 40% (n=129) had SOC, 60% underwent CW RT, 40% WB RT and 82% had systemic therapy. Pts with SOC were more likely to be Hispanic (14% vs 8% p=0.007), AA (43% vs 1%, p<0.001) and have greater mean BMI (28.0 vs 26.5, p=0.02). Acute grade 2/3 RD was lower in SOC (FS I 60%, FS II 63%, FS III 52%, FS IV 64%, FS V 40%, FS VI 41%; p=0.049). Increased BSP (OR 0.83; p=0.01) and AA pts (OR: 0.22; p<0.001) had lower odds of acute grade 2/3 RD, whereas bolus and dosimetric parameters such as increased PTV volume had increased odds. On multivariable analysis (MVA), AA pts and bolus remained significant (OR: 0.14, p=0.01; OR: 6.63 p<0.001, respectively). Topical steroid use to treat RD was less frequent and oral analgesic use was more frequent in SOC (43% vs 63%, p<0.001; 50% vs 38%, p=0.05, respectively). Pts with increased BSP (OR 0.73, p<0.001), AA race (OR 0.19, p<0.001) and greater BMI had lower use of topical interventions whereas any boost phase, bolus, IMN RT and increased PTV volume had greater use. On MVA, AA pts (OR 0.27, p=0.04), boost (OR 2.04, p=0.033), IMN RT (OR 2.73, p=0.003) and PTV V105% (OR=1.002, p=0.03) retained significance. Late grade 2/3 hyperpigmentation was greater in SOC (16% vs 3%, p=0.01). Increased BSP (OR 2.14, p=0.001), AA pts (OR 8.18, p=0.02), bolus and CW boost had greater odds of grade 2/3 hyperpigmentation. On MVA, increased BSP (OR: 3.76, p=0.03) and bolus (OR: 14.1, p=0.01) retained significance.
Conclusion(s): We found less clinician-graded acute RD in SOC and AA pts, less frequent use of topical interventions but more oral analgesic use. We also found higher rates of late pigmentation change with increased BSP independent of race. These findings suggest that RD may be under-diagnosed in SOC. This study confirms the necessity for objective measures of RD that account for variability in BSP to accurately classify the severity of radiation skin toxicity in SOC and treat accordingly.
Copyright

Purpose/Objective(s): Breast re-irradiation (reRT) after repeat breast conserving surgery (BCS) has emerged as a viable alternative to mastectomy in women presenting with low risk in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). However, there is limited data on optimal patient selection and safety of different fractionation regimens. This multi-institutional study reports safety and efficacy in a large cohort of women with IBTR treated with repeat BCS and reRT. Materials/Methods: Using electronic medical record search tools, we identified all patients who underwent repeat BCS followed by breast reRT from 2015-2021 at 2 institutions. Univariate logistic regression models were used to identify clinical and dosimetric factors associated with development of acute and late toxicities. All statistical tests were two-sided, and the null hypothesis was rejected for p<0.05. Kaplan Meier methodology was used to calculate overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LR-RFS).
Result(s): We identified 66 patients with an IBTR treated with repeat BCS. In the initial RT course, 55% received whole breast RT (WBI) with conventional fractionation (<=2 Gy/fraction[fx]), 29% WBI with hypofractionation (2.6-2.7 Gy/fx), 6% partial breast irradiation (PBI) ultrahypofractionation (6-8 Gy/fx) and 11% had unavailable treatment details. There was a median of 11 years between initial breast cancer and IBTR. At time of recurrence, 36% of patients had tumors located in the same quadrant as the initial cancer, 41% had invasive carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 41% had invasive carcinoma alone, 18% had DCIS alone, 92% had tumors < 2 cm, 68% had low-intermediate grade tumors and all were clinically node negative. For reRT, 95% received PBI (57.5% 45 Gy/1.5 Gy twice daily; 27% 45 Gy/1.8 Gy daily; 10.5% hypofractionation), and 5% received WBI (45-46.8 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fx), all of whom had received PBI for the initial course. Nine patients (13%) underwent adjuvant chemotherapy and 44 (67%) adjuvant hormone therapy. Median follow-up was 16 months (range 3-60). Twenty-one patients (32%) experienced any acute >= grade 2 events, and 17 (26%) experienced any late >= grade 2 toxicities. One patient experienced grade 3 fibrosis and one patient experienced grade 3 telangiectasia at 36 months. None had grade 4 or higher late adverse events. We found no association between fractionation of reRT or cumulative dose (measured as EQD2) with acute or late toxicity. At 2 years, OS was 100%, DMFS was 91.6%, and LR-RFS was 100%.
Conclusion(s): In this large multi-institutional series of patients with recurrent breast cancer, second breast conservation surgery followed by reRT was effective with no local recurrences and excellent disease control outcomes, and toxicity appears to be acceptable. Longer follow-up and more prospective study are needed to further inform patient selection and establish the efficacy and tolerability of repeat breast conservation therapy in the setting of limited, low-risk recurrence.
Copyright

Purpose/Objective(s): The LGBTQ community is an understudied and medically underserved population who experience increased cancer risk and worse cancer outcomes. Negative provider interactions, including discrimination and lack of knowledge regarding LGBTQ-specific health issues are cited by patients as barriers to care, including in radiation oncology (RO). Notably, little is known regarding LGBTQ knowledge and attitudes among RO residents (ROR) or LGBTQ-specific training in RO residency training programs. Thus, we sought to assess the extent of current LGBTQ-specific training in U.S. RO residency programs. Materials/Methods: Two published surveys of LGBTQ-education in residency were adapted to RO. The first assessed LGBTQ education from the perspective of program directors (PD) and associate PDs (APD), while the second survey was to RORs. The surveys were sent to all ACGME-accredited U.S. RO residency PD, APD, and program coordinators (PC), with the ROR survey being disseminated by the respective PCs. Each survey consisted of subsections of attitudes and knowledge in the care of LGBTQ patients, RO program characteristics, program inclusion of LGBTQ-specific education, and individual demographics.
Result(s): There were 69 responses (29 PD, APD and 40 ROR). The majority of respondents (PD, APD/ROR) identified as white (79%/58%), non-Hispanic (76%/72%), male (55%/55%), and heterosexual (86%/78%). The majority of PD, APDs did not receive LGBTQ education in medical school (60%) or residency training (96%), while the majority of residents (68%) did receive LGBTQ training in medical school; yet, both groups felt this training was insufficient to care for LGBTQ patients during residency (76%/68%). Overall, respondents felt comfortable treating LGB (90%/85%) and T (79%/62.5%) patients. However, the majority did not feel confident in their knowledge for LGB (52%/62.5%) or T (79%/85%) health needs. The majority of respondents' programs have never had a didactic session on LGBTQ health (78%/80%) resulting in 61%/61% of respondents feeling their program inadequately prepares residents to work confidently with LGBTQ patients. However, the majority felt their program is receptive to incorporating LGBTQ health content into their curriculum (75%/75%) and expressed a personal interest in such education (97%/80%). Additional data will be available by time of conference.
Conclusion(s): We found an increase of LGTBQ education in medical schools between PD, APD and ROR, suggestive of a recent improvement in LGBTQ content; yet most residency programs still lacked any LGBTQ-specific education. While the majority felt comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, they simultaneously lacked confidence in knowledge regarding LGBTQ health needs; yet, possessed desire for additional education and belief that such trainings should require. Conclusion is that residencies need to do a better job incorporating LGBTQ health content into their curricula, which is supported by interest from ROR and program leadership.
Copyright

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is commonly caused by malignancy but is rarely associated with breast cancer. The following case series describes three female breast cancer patients who were found to have disease recurrence years after initial diagnosis, presenting as facial swelling, collateral vessel formation, and shortness of breath consistent with SVC syndrome. All patients were treated with radiation therapy, and one patient required stenting due to tumor thrombus in the SVC. These cases highlight a rare complication of breast cancer that clinicians should recognize in patients who have undergone treatment particularly for right sided breast cancer with lymph node involvement.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Randomized data support accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for early-stage breast cancer with variable techniques and cosmesis outcomes. We have treated patients with 5-fraction prone external beam APBI for over a decade and herein report acute and late outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Patients receiving APBI 600 cGy × 5 between 2010 and 2019 were included. APBI was primarily delivered prone, with opposed tangents targeting the tumor bed expanded by 1.5 cm (cropped 6 mm from skin). Ipsilateral breast was constrained to V50% < 60% and V100% < 35%. Survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier. Late toxicities and clinician- and patient-rated cosmesis were evaluated for patients with >6 months follow-up (FU). RESULTS:Of 345 patients meeting criteria, 14 were excluded due to APBI given for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR; n = 3), palliation (n = 9), and incomplete radiation therapy course (n = 2). Of the 331 remaining, median age was 70, 7.2% had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 94.3% were treated prone, with 32% treated every other day and 68% on consecutive days. Mean heart dose was 23.8 cGy for left-sided and 12.7 cGy for right-sided cancers. Ipsilateral lung V30% was 0.4%. At 5-year median FU, there were 7 (2.1%) IBTR, 9 (2.7%) contralateral recurrences, and 1 (0.3%) distant metastasis. Five-year local recurrence-free, disease-free, and overall survival was 99.5%, 96.7%, and 98.1%, respectively. When comparing patients with IBTR versus without, a higher proportion did not receive hormone therapy (71.4% vs. 26.2%, P = .018). Rates of acute grade 1 to 2 dermatitis, fatigue, and pain were 35.4%, 21.8%, and 9.4%, respectively, with no grade 3 toxicity. The rate of good-excellent physician- and patient-rated cosmesis (n = 199, median FU 2.8 years) was 92.5% and 89.4%, respectively. Patients experienced low rates of telangiectasia, fibrosis, and retraction/atrophy. CONCLUSIONS:We report excellent dosimetric, oncologic, cosmetic, and late toxicity outcomes for patients treated with 5-fraction APBI. To our knowledge this is the largest series of women treated with prone APBI.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): The supraclavicular (SCV), medial axillary and internal mammary nodes (IMNs) are not typically resected in breast cancer patients (pts). The optimal local therapy of pts with nodal disease in these regions is not well-studied. We aim to evaluate outcomes of breast cancer patients with unresected nodal disease. MATERIALS/METHODS: We identified 79 pts at our institution from 2016- 2021 with unresected nodal disease in the axilla, SCV and/or IMNs defined as grossly enlarged nodes on CT, MRI or PET scan +/- biopsy confirmation. Pts were treated with breast/chest wall and regional nodal irradiation with an additional boost to the unresected nodal region. Distant failure (DF) and local-regional failure (LRF) were assessed. Kaplan-Meier was used to calculate disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with worse DFS. Acute and late toxicity of RT were evaluated.
RESULT(S): 33% of pts were treated with breast-conserving surgery, 65% with mastectomy and all had axillary surgery (81% ALND, 19% SLNB). 47% of pts received IMN boost (IMN), 40% axillary/SCV boost (axSCV) and 15% both IMN and axSCV boost (IMN/axSCV). Most had cT2-3 (72%), hormone receptor positive (75%), and HER-2 negative disease (84%). 57% of axSCV had cN3A disease; 84% of IMN and 83% of IMN/axSCV had cN3b disease. 7% of axSCV and 17% of IMN/axSCV had cN3c disease. Most pts received chemotherapy (97%). Median nodal boost dose was 10 Gy (range 10-20 Gy), with 17% axSCV, 22% IMN, and 17% IMN/axSCV receiving 14-20 Gy. Rates of acute and late grade 3 toxicity did not differ by boost location (acute: IMN: 20%, axSCV: 11% and IMN/axSCV 20%, P=0.559; late: IMN: 40%, axSCV: 25%, IMN/axSCV: 40%, P=0.630) nor by boost dose (10 Gy vs 14-20 Gy). There were no grade 4+ toxicities. With a median follow up of 30 months, the 3-year LRR, DFS, and OS was 94.5%, 86.3% and 93.8% respectively. Crude rates of failure for the entire group were 13.9% (10.1% DF; 3.8% DF+LRF). Rates of failure by boost group were axSCV: 13.3% (10% DF; 3.3% DF+LRF), IMN: 5.4% (2.7% DF, 2.7% DF+LRF), IMN/axSCV 41.7% (33.3% DF, 8.3% DF+LRF). There were no LRFs without DFs. Median time to failure was 23 months (IQR 18-34). On univariate analysis clinical tumor size (cT) and IMN/axSCV vs. IMN or axSCV alone was associated with worse DFS (HR: 9.78 95% CI 2.07-46.2, P=0.004 and HR: 9.49 95% CI 2.67-33.7, P=0.001). On multivariate analysis, cT approached significance (HR 6.15; 95% CI 0.95-39.8, P=0.05). IMN/axSCV vs. IMN or axSCV alone retained significance (HR 4.80; 95% CI 1.27-18.13, P=0.02). The difference between the axSCV vs. IMN group was not significant.
CONCLUSION(S): In this population of pts with unresected nodal disease, boost RT to radiographically positive LN regions can be safely delivered with low rates of grade 3+ toxicity. The majority of failures were distant with no isolated LRFs. Failures were highest in the IMN/axSCV group (~40%). Further treatment escalation is necessary for these pts.
Copyright