|Year : 2009 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 93-101
Accelerated partial-breast irradiation vs conventional whole-breast radiotherapy in early breast cancer: A case-control study of disease control, cosmesis, and complications
Tabassum Wadasadawala1, Rajiv Sarin1, Ashwini Budrukkar1, Rakesh Jalali1, Anusheel Munshi1, Rajendra Badwe2
1 Depatment of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India
2 Depatment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India
|Date of Web Publication||16-Jun-2009|
Tata Memorial Hospital, Senior Registrar, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dr. Ernest Borges Road, Main building, Room No. 115, Parel (East), Mumbai - 400 012
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Context: Accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) using various approaches is being increasingly employed for selected women with early breast cancer (EBC).
Aims: To conduct a case-control study comparing disease control, cosmesis, and complications in patients with EBC undergoing APBI using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy vs those receiving conventional whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT).
Settings and Design: Women with EBC fulfilling the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) criteria were selected as 'cases' if treated with APBI or as 'controls' if offered WBRT during the period from May 2000 to December 2004.
Materials and Methods: APBI patients were treated with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) to a dose of 34 Gy/10#/6-8 days. WBRT was delivered to the whole breast to a dose of 45 Gy/25# followed by tumor bed boost, either with electrons (15 Gy/6#) or interstitial brachytherapy (HDR 10 Gy/1#).
Results: At the median follow-up of 43.05 months in APBI and 51.08 months in WBRT there was no difference in overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), late arm edema, and symptomatic fat necrosis between the two groups. However, APBI resulted in increase in mild breast fibrosis at the tumor bed. Telangiectasias were observed in three patients of the APBI group. The cosmetic outcome was significantly better in the APBI group as compared to the WBRT group (P = 0.003).
Conclusions: This study revealed equivalent locoregional and distant disease control in the two groups. APBI offered better overall cosmetic outcome, though at the cost of a slight increase in mild breast fibrosis and telangiectasias.
Keywords: Accelerated partial-breast irradiation, whole-breast radiotherapy, American brachytherapy society, early breast cancer, interstitial brachytherapy
|How to cite this article:|
Wadasadawala T, Sarin R, Budrukkar A, Jalali R, Munshi A, Badwe R. Accelerated partial-breast irradiation vs conventional whole-breast radiotherapy in early breast cancer: A case-control study of disease control, cosmesis, and complications. J Can Res Ther 2009;5:93-101
|How to cite this URL:|
Wadasadawala T, Sarin R, Budrukkar A, Jalali R, Munshi A, Badwe R. Accelerated partial-breast irradiation vs conventional whole-breast radiotherapy in early breast cancer: A case-control study of disease control, cosmesis, and complications. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2009 [cited 2021 Oct 16];5:93-101. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2009/5/2/93/52794
| > Introduction|| |
Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), with wide excision of the breast lump followed by radiotherapy (RT) to the whole breast, is considered the present standard of care for stage I and II breast cancer. ,, Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) currently takes 6-7 weeks for delivering adequate doses (45-50 Gy to entire breast, followed by tumor bed irradiation) to the breast. This protracted course is the major hindrance to the wider application of BCT. As a result, a significant proportion of patients either does not receive PORT at all or else they opt for mastectomy in order to avoid the problems associated with a prolonged treatment.  In the past two decades, the approach to adjuvant RT for early breast cancer has been revisited, especially with regard to the use of abbreviated but equally efficacious RT schedules, both for their impact on locoregional control and on quality of life (QOL) in appropriately selected patient subgroups [Table 1]. The concept and rationale for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) is supported by contemporary pathologic data  and the in-breast failure patterns reported after BCT. ,, In addition, equivalent results of hypofractionated vs the conventionally fractionated regime for whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) provide confidence in the delivery of APBI. ,, Various approaches like interstitial brachytherapy, intraoperative low-energy x-rays, intraoperative electrons, balloon brachytherapy, seed brachytherapy, and external-beam conformal RT, either with three-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), have been evaluated.  APBI using interstitial brachytherapy has been practiced at Tata Memorial Hospital as a part of an Institutional Review Board approved prospective study since June 2000, but only after employing more stringent selection criteria than those currently recommended [Table 2]. In this ongoing study at our center, so far 160 patients have received APBI and the early results are comparable to the reports from Western countries.  The present study was undertaken to compare the overall outcome of this approach with a group of similarly selected patients treated with conventional WBRT.
| > Materials and Methods|| |
To ensure appropriate matching and for minimization of bias due to various confounding factors, this case-control study was restricted to women participating in an ongoing randomized trial evaluating preoperative single-dose hormone therapy. All women in this randomized trial who underwent BCT during the period from May 2000 to December 2004 and fulfilled the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) criteria were taken as 'cases' ( n = 27) if they were treated with APBI or as 'control' ( n = 67) if they were advised WBRT.
All patients (whether undergoing APBI or WBRT) underwent wide local excision of tumor with at least a 1cm margin all around and complete axillary clearance (level I, II, and III nodes). The incision was placed directly over the tumor site. The tumor base was excised up to the pectoralis fascia.
In the APBI group, multi-catheter interstitial implant was performed intraoperatively in 18 patients and postoperatively in the remaining nine patients [Table 3]. Using rules of Paris System for volume implants, the implant was configured to irradiate the excisional cavity with an additional margin of 1 cm. None of the patients underwent re-excision for close, positive, or uncertain margins in the APBI group, while only two patients from the WBRT group had to undergo revision of margins.
All patients treated with WBRT were simulated in supine position, using a breast board for patient positioning and immobilization and a plaster-of-Paris (POP) cast for obtaining breast contour and various beam parameters for bitangential technique. The dose was prescribed at the isocenter for the tangential fields. Two-dimensional planning on Sunrise/ PLATO planning system was done for obtaining a uniform distribution of isodoses, such that 95% isodose would adequately cover the entire breast. Wedges were used as compensators in order to improve the dose homogeneity whenever necessary. The entire breast was treated to a dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks, followed by a boost to the tumor bed to a dose of 15 Gy in six fractions. Five patients received a boost to the tumor bed in the form an interstitial implant to a dose of 10 Gy single fraction [Table 4]. RT was started 2-4 weeks after completion of systemic chemotherapy.
Adjuvant systemic treatment
Eighteen patients (66.7%) in the APBI group and 63 patients (94%) in the WBRT group received systemic adjuvant chemotherapy. A larger proportion of patients (74%; n = 20) in the APBI group received adjuvant hormonal treatment than in the WBRT group (67%; n = 45). The possible reasons for this difference in the use of adjuvant systemic therapy are discussed later in this article.
Patients were seen every 6 months during the first 2 years and every 12 months thereafter both in the surgical as well as the RT clinic. Baseline mammography was performed 6 months after completion of radiotherapy and was repeated yearly thereafter. Cosmetic results were evaluated by the treating radiation oncologist using the Harvard criteria. 
Statistical analysis was performed using SYSTAT (SPSS, version 14). Analysis was done for local recurrences, regional recurrences, distant metastasis, disease-free survival, overall survival, cosmesis, and complications. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the rates of ipsilateral local or regional failure, disease-free survival, and overall survival. The statistical significance of difference between actuarial curves was calculated using the log rank test. Tumor-related categorical variables were compared within the two groups using the chi square test and continuous variables were compared using Student's unpaired t test. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All time intervals were calculated from the date of registration.
| > Results|| |
Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics
The details of patient, tumor, and treatment-related characteristics for both APBI and WBRT are presented in [Table 3],[Table 4],[Table 5]. All patients fulfilled the ABS criteria for partial-breast irradiation, i.e., age ≥ 45 years, pathologic tumor size ≤3 cm, pathologically uninvolved nodes, clear margins, and no evidence of Extensive Intraductal Componenet (EIC). Although the same ABS criteria were used for both cases and controls, patients in the WBRT group had more unfavorable prognostic factors than patients in the APBI group,, more were Estrogen Receptor (ER) negative (71.1% vs 44.4%; P = 0.031), more had lymphovascular emboli (17.9% vs 3.7%; P = 0.038), and the mean pathological tumor size was slightly larger (2.47 cm vs 2.20 cm; P = 0.058). This difference in prognostic factors could have led to the increased use of chemotherapy in the WBRT group as compared to the APBI group (94% vs 66.7%; P = 0.001).
No local or regional recurrences were observed in both the groups, i.e., there was 100% locoregional control. No distant metastases were encountered in the APBI group, while the rate of distant metastases was 7.5% in the WBRT group. The disease-free survival and overall survival were 100% in the APBI group and 93.8% and 92.3% in the WBRT group respectively [Figure 1] and [Figure 2].
The cosmetic outcome recorded at the time of the last follow-up was significantly better in the APBI group as compared to the WBRT group [Table 6]. [Figure 3] compares the percentage of 'excellent-good' cosmesis (88.9% vs 56.0%) and 'fair-poor' cosmesis (11.1% vs 44%) in the two treatment groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups ( P = 0.003) favoring APBI. Examples of 'excellent' and 'poor' cosmesis are depicted in [Figure 4] and [Figure 5].
The difference in the incidence of arm edema and first symptomatic fat necrosis in the two groups was not significant ( P = 0.129 and P = 1.000, respectively). Of the two patients who developed symptomatic fat necrosis in the WBRT group, one patient received interstitial boost and another received electron boost to the tumor bed. Telangiectasias and mild breast fibrosis were significantly higher in the APBI group than in the WBRT group ( P = 0.025 and P = 0.000, respectively). However, it is notable that the fibrosis related to APBI was only grade I and limited to the tumor bed and did not significantly affect overall cosmesis.
| > Discussion|| |
The concept of APBI for EBC has gained popularity over the past decade because of the attractive technical and logistic advantages. If it proves to be a successful strategy, this may mark a major shift after a century of adherence to the Halstedian paradigm of whole-breast treatment.  As with any new therapeutic approach, APBI cannot become a standard treatment option for selected patients until a sound radiobiological and clinical rationale can be defined for this approach and, most importantly, it can be backed up by mature data from well-conducted, large, randomized controlled trials (RCT). At present, only one well-conducted (though small) RCT has reported early satisfactory results with APBI.  The 5-year results of ongoing randomized trials from other large cooperative groups will be available only after 6-8 years. ,,,,,,
There are several differences in the profile of patients in this study (which is the only Indian study) as compared to patients in the studies of APBI reported from the West. The main differences are that, in our study, very few tumors were detected by screening or were <1 cm in size, the histological features were less favorable, and there was a higher use of systemic chemotherapy.  To the best of our knowledge, no other Indian center has as yet initiated a systematic programme of APBI. There is a need to establish the safety and efficacy of APBI in selected Indian women who are potentially eligible for APBI as per the ABS and ASBS criteria but, in general, have a somewhat different profile as compared to the typical patients treated with APBI in the West. Ideally, this issue should be addressed through a well-designed and adequately powered randomized study conducted in India. However, to rule out a small difference (of a few percent) in disease control with APBI as compared to WBRT, we would need an RCT with over a thousand patients, as in most of the ongoing RCTs in the West. With the relatively small number of women who are potentially suited for APBI at our center, it is not feasible for us to conduct an RCT. Hence, in the Indian context, the best option at present is a prospective study comparing patients treated with APBI with matched controls who have been treated with conventional WBRT by the same set of clinicians and with comparable standards of pathology reporting during the same time period.
In the present study, we did not include the entire cohort of 160 women who had undergone APBI at our center during the period of 2000-2006 as the cases. The general principle in selecting controls is to select subjects who satisfy the inclusion criteria for the study similar to cases but were offered standard treatment. We decided to restrict our cases and controls to women who fulfilled all the ABS criteria but underwent either APBI (cases) or WBRT (controls) and were originally from a cohort of women participating in another ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial designed to assess the utility of single-dose preoperative hormone therapy in improving distant disease control and survival. The use of preoperative hormone injection was equally balanced between the groups ( P = 0.977). Before restricting our cases and controls to subjects from this study we made the important assumption that use of hormone injection prior to surgery is unlikely to significantly influence the incidence and pattern of breast recurrence, irrespective of the volume of breast irradiated. In order to ensure a reasonably good follow-up period, we further restricted this study to patients treated during May 2000 to 2004, and their records were updated in August 2007. The merit that we saw in selecting our cases and controls from among the women participating in this hormone therapy study was that it was a very tightly monitored RCT, with a good clinico-radiological follow-up and maintenance of detailed records of all disease- and treatment-related outcomes. By assigning all the 94 women who underwent BCT during the study period in this trial and fulfilled the ABS criteria as either cases ( n = 27) or controls ( n = 67), we have ruled out the possibility of any intentional or investigator bias.
In this study, by using the ABS criteria which takes into account several patient- and tumor-related parameters, we assumed that both cases and controls would be very well matched for these as well as other important parameters. However, the findings of our study highlight the inherent pitfalls of a case-control study. Despite all the cases as well as controls being women over the age of 45 years, with tumors less than 3 cm in size and uninvolved axillary nodes and surgical margins, a significantly higher proportion of controls had unfavorable pathological features (i.e., were ER negative or LVI positive, or had larger tumor size) and, as a result, there was greater use of chemotherapy in the control group. A lower disease-free survival in the control group, though not statistically significant, is perhaps a reflection of the unequal distribution of these prognostic variables. It is worth noting that the difference in the mean pathological tumor size between the two groups was merely 2.6 mm. Reducing this difference between the two groups would have required very precise matching (to the last millimeter), which would have been very impractical; the problem would have been compounded by the need to match for all the other histological parameters.
The other limitation of this study is the small sample size. This small sample size may have prevented us from confirming as real the important trends noted for the effect of several therapeutic and tumor parameters on disease outcome, cosmesis, and QOL.
While the relatively small sample size of our study may make it unlikely that we will be able to identify the all-important slight worsening of tumor control with the experimental treatment (APBI), especially at longer follow-up, it is reassuring to note that at a median follow-up of 43 months, none of the 27 women had any recurrence. This is an indication of not only very appropriate selection criteria but also of the use of a good surgical and RT technique. In addition to applying the standard ABS selection criteria, we also excluded from this study those patients with EIC or lobular carcinoma or those with strong family history of carcinoma breast. It was important to exclude these patients as most of these characteristics predispose to multicentricity and increased risk of recurrence outside the tumor bed. However, when the use of APBI was first initiated at our institute, similar to other investigators, family history of breast cancer was not used as a criterion for excluding patients from APBI treatment,. But later, we sometimes excluded patients who gave a very strong family history of hereditary breast cancer as there is a known high predilection for multicentric involvement leading to higher ipsilateral breast recurrences in such cases.  In other studies that have used poor case selection or poor radiotherapeutic technique, unacceptably high breast recurrence rates were observed [Table 7], and many of these recurrences were within the first 3 years of treatment. Our results with APBI are comparable with those reported from other institutions [Table 8]. The case-control study reported by Vicini et al ., comparing 174 cases with 1388 matched controls, was able to reliably show the equivalence of APBI to WBRT for tumor control in their highly selected cohort.  The mean tumor size in their study was however only 11 mm, much smaller than the 22 mm in our cases.
[Table 9] shows the cosmetic outcome and incidence of grade 3 or 4 late complications in the APBI group in our study as compared to the reports from other institutions. In the present study, the overall cosmetic outcome was better in the APBI group than in the WBRT group. This could be related to the late effect of RT to whole breast and the higher total dose delivered in case of WBRT as compared to APBI. For tumor control, if we use an α/β value of 10 Gy, the typical value for many tumors, in the linear-quadratic cell survival model, the biologic equivalent dose (BED) computed for the hypofractionated schedule (34 Gy/10#) would be substantially lower (46 Gy) than that for the standard treatments.  However, if we apply an α/β value for breast carcinoma of 4 Gy, as suggested by experiments involving irradiation of human breast cancer cell lines and clinical trials evaluating hypofractionated WBRT, a dose of 34 Gy given in 10 fractions of 3.4 Gy per fraction over 5 days is radiobiologically equivalent in tumor control to a dose of 50 Gy given in 25 fractions of 2 Gy over 5 weeks, which is the dose commonly used in studies of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, i.e., it is identical to that of the standard treatment without a boost. , At the same time, this hypofractionated scheme results in the same BED for late breast tissue complications (including fibrosis, erythema, and telangiectasia) as that of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, a regimen used at many institutions, including ours, to treat the tumor bed (46-50 Gy to the whole breast plus a boost of 10-14 Gy), which has been reported to have excellent cosmetic results.
The other factor which has the potential to worsen the cosmetic outcome is the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. Results from studies evaluating the effect of chemotherapy have reported that in women receiving doxorubicin-based chemotherapy there was a higher risk of fat necrosis, lower rates of excellent cosmetic results,  and the occurrence of acute radiation recall reactions.  The inferior cosmetic results in the WBRT group could be related to the higher proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy in our study. As mentioned earlier, our small sample size may have failed to find any small, yet significant, impact of these factors on the cosmesis. Apart from these factors, numerous surgical and radiation factors are also known to affect cosmesis and should be considered while evaluating cosmetic outcome. 
Breast edema is only rarely a long-term complication of RT and tends to resolve by about 12 months. It was not commonly seen in either of the treatment groups. The incidence of arm edema, breast symptoms, and symptomatic fat necrosis was similar in the two groups. Upper extremity lymphedema occurs when fluid accumulates in the interstitial space and causes enlargement with, usually, a feeling of heaviness in the limb. Axillary surgery contributes considerably to the incidence of lymphedema, with the incidence and severity of swelling being related to the number of lymph nodes removed.  Lymphedema after standard axillary lymph node dissection can occur in up to approximately 50% of patients. However, the risk of lymphedema is decreased substantially with newer sentinel lymph node sampling procedures, which is especially relevant for early tumors. , Adjuvant RT to the breast or lymph nodes increases the risk of lymphedema, which has been reported in 9-40% of these patients.  Management of lymphedema requires a multidisciplinary approach to minimize the effect on the patient's QOL. In the present study, though a greater number of WBRT patients developed mild to moderate lymphedema, the difference was not statistically significant. Due to complete avoidance of axillary RT as the present standard, the horrendous consequence of severe lymphedema is not seen in present-day practice.
Telangiectasia, a delayed skin sequela of RT, typically occurs late after RT, usually after about 18 months. But telangiectasia, unless extremely severe, is uncommonly the only cause of a poor cosmetic result. A higher incidence of telangiectasia has been reported with the use of MammoSite or interstitial brachytherapy in cases when skin-to-radioactive source distance was <5 mm  In our study, telangiectasias were found in 11.1% of patients in the APBI group and in none in the WBRT group. These telangiectasias were seen only at the entry and exit sites of the catheter and not in any other part. As these were not severe, the overall cosmesis was not significantly affected and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.
The APBI group experienced greater grade 1 or 2 skin fibrosis as compared to the WBRT group (44.4% vs 8.7%; P = 0.000), as is to be expected of any brachytherapy procedure. However, the fibrosis was restricted to the tumor bed and there were no increased rates of grade 3 or 4 skin toxicity. When large fraction sizes are used, differences in normal-tissue radiosensitivity are likely to be magnified. There are currently no predictive markers to determine which patients will develop radiation-induced late toxicity. Li and colleagues detected a significant correlation between pretreatment plasma levels of tumor growth factor-β-1 (a multifunctional cytokine implicated in tissue fibrosis) and the risk of severe fibrosis among patients treated with BCT.  Other studies have revealed that specific polymorphisms of the tumor growth factor-β-1 promoter gene could be associated with the development of severe fibrosis. Hopefully, studies of 'radiation genomics' may result in a panel of markers that can be used to prospectively detect 'fibrosis-prone' individuals.
| > Conclusion|| |
The finding of equivalent disease control with APBI in well selected women in our case-control study is very similar to that reported by leading groups from Europe and North America. These comparable results have been obtained in a cohort of women whose tumors are, in general, much larger than those in the studies reported from the West. This indicates that there may be scope for offering APBI to women with somewhat larger tumors than is typically offered in most Western centers; however, these patients must be well selected in all other respects to minimize the risk of multicentric recurrence. The mature results of ongoing randomized trials from large cooperative groups in North America and Europe are expected in the next 5-10 years and may mark a major shift away from the Halstedian paradigm of whole-breast treatment. This is expected to increase the acceptance of BCT in the community and prevent many unnecessary mastectomies or breast recurrences due to omission of RT after a breast-conserving surgery. APBI also provides the additional benefit of a better cosmetic outcome. As with partial-organ treatment for any cancer, the key to the success of this partial-organ treatment approach in breast cancer lies in appropriate case selection and the use of optimal treatment techniques.
| > References|| |
|1.||Clark RM, Whelan T, Levine M, Roberts R, Willan A, McCulloch P, et al . Randomized clinical trial of breast irradiation following lumpectomy and axillary dissection for node negative breast cancer: an update. Ontario Clinical Oncology Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1659-64. |
|2.||Liljegren G, Holmberg L, Bergh J, Lindgren A, Tabαr L, Nordgren H, et al . 10 year results after sector resection with or without postoperative radiotherapy for stage I breast cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2326-33. |
|3.||Veronesi U, Marubini E, Mariani L, Galimberti V, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al . Radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery in small breast carcinoma: Long term results of a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 2001;12:997-1003. |
|4.||Morrow M, White J, Moughan J, Owen J, Pajack T, Sylvester J, et al . Factors predicting the use of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19: 2254-62. |
|5.||Ohtake T, Abe R, Kimijima I, Fukushima T, Tsuchiya A, Hoshi K, et al . Intraductal extension of primary invasive breast carcinoma treated by breast-conservative surgery. Cancer 1995;76:32-45. |
|6.||Yarnold J, Ashton A, Bliss J, Homewood J, Harper C, Hanson J, et al . Fractionation sensitivity and dose response of late adverse effects in the breast after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: long-term results of a randomised trial. Radiother Oncol 2005;75:9-17. |
|7.||Owen JR, Ashton A, Bliss JM, Homewood J, Harper C, Hanson J, et al . Effect of radiotherapy fraction size on tumor control in patients with early stage breast cancer after local tumor exicision: long term results of a randomized trial. Lancet Oncology 2006;7:467-71. |
|8.||No authors listed: Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trial. START trial management group. Clin Oncol 1999;11:145-7. |
|9.||Sarin R. Partial breast treatment for early breast cancer: emergence of a new paradigm. Nature Clinical Practice Oncology 2004, Vol 2, No. 1, 40-47. |
|10.||Budrukkar A, Sarin R, Jalali R, Badwe R, Parmar V, Nadkarni M et al . APBI with interstitial brachytherapy as a sole modality of radiation for women with low risk early stage breast cancer, JCO, 2006, ASCO Proceedings, vol. 24, no. 18S, 10661. |
|11.||Arthur DW, Vicini FA, Kuske RR, Wazer DE, Nag S; American Brachytherapy Society. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: an updated report from the American Brachytherapy Society. Brachytherapy 2003;2:124-30. |
|12.||American Society of Breast Surgeons. Consensus statement for accelerated partial breast irradiation. Available from: http://www.breastsurgeons.org/officialstmts/officialstmt3.shtml . [last accessed Jun 2008]. |
|13.||Kuske RR, Winter K, Arthur DW, Bolton J, Rabinovitch R, White J, et al . Phase II of brachytherapy alone after lumpectomy for select breast cancer: Toxicity analysis of RTOG 95-17. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2006;65:45-51. |
|14.||Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stage I and II breast carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1979;5:257-61. |
|15.||Polgαr C, Sulyok Z, Fodor J, Orosz Z, Major T, Takαcsi-Nagy Z, et al . Sole brachytherapy of the tumor bed after conservative surgery for T1 breast cancer: Five-year results of a phase I-II study and initial findings of a randomized phase III trial. J Surg Oncol 2002;80:121-8. |
|16.||Polgαr C, Major T, Fodor J, Nιmeth G, Orosz Z, Sulyok Z, et al . High dose rate brachytherapy alone versus whole breast radiotherapy with or without tumor bed boost after breast conserving surgery: Seven year results of a comparative study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;6:1173-81. |
|17.||Polgar C, Strnad V, Major T. Brachytherapy for partial breast irradiation: the European experience. Semin Radiat Oncol 2005;15:116-22. |
|18.||Kuerer H. The case for accelerated partial breast irradiation for breast cancer. Contemporary Surgery 2003;59:508-17. |
|19.||Vaidya JS, Tobias JS, Baum M, Keshtgar M, Joseph D, Wenz F, et al . Intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2004;5:165-73. |
|20.||Tobias JS, Vaidya JS, Keshtgar M, D′Souza DP, Baum M. Reducing radiotherapy dose early breast cancer: the concept of conformal Intraoperative brachytherapy. Br J Radiol 2004;77:279-84. |
|21.||Wallner P, Arthur D, Bartelink H, Connolly J, Edmundson G, Giuliano A, et al . Workshop on partial breast irradiation: state of the art and the science, Bethesda, MD, December 8-10, 2002. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:175-84. |
|22.||Orecchia R, Ciocca M, Lazzari R, Garibaldi C, Leonardi MC, Luini A, et al : Intraoperative radiation therapy with electrons (ELIOT) in early- stage breast cancer. Breast 2003;12:483- 90. |
|23.||Vicini F, Baglan K, Kestin L, Mitchell C, Chen P, Frazier R et al . Accelerated treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1993-2001. Kuske R, Bolton J, Fuhrman G, McKinnon W, Stolier A, Wilenzick R, et al . Wide volume brachytherapy alone for select breast cancers: the ten year experience of the Ochsner Clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:296. (abstr, suppl 3). |
|24.||Benitez PR, Chen PY, Vicini FA, Wallace M, Kestin L, Edmundson G, et al . Partial breast irradiation in breast-conserving therapy by way of interstitial brachytherapy. The American Journal of Surgery 2004;18:355-64. |
|25.||Polgαr C, Major T, Somogyi A, Fodor J, Tóth J, Sulyok Z, et al . Sole brachytherapy of the tumor bed after breast-conserving surgery: A new radiotherapeutic strategy for patients at low risk of local relapse. Neoplasma 1999;46:182-9. |
|26.||Arthur DW, Koo D, Zwicker RD, Tong S, Bear HD, Kaplan BJ, et al . |
|27.||Partial breast brachytherapy after lumpectomy: Low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:681-9. |
|28.||Bentzen S, Baumann M. The linear-quadratic model in clinical practice. In: Steel GG, ed. Basic clinical radiobiology, 3 r d edn. London: Arnold;2002:134-46. |
|29.||Magee B, Swindell R, Harris M, Banerjee SS. Prognostic factors for breast recurrence after conservative breast surgery and radiotherapy: results from a randomised trial. Radiother Oncol 1996;39;223-7. |
|30.||Fentiman IS, Poole C, Tong D, Winter PJ, Gregory WM, Mayles HM, et al . Inadequacy of iridium implant as sole radiation treatment for operable breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:608-11. |
|31.||Póti Z, Nemeskιri C, Fekιshαzy A, Sαfrαny G, Bajzik G, Nagy ZP, et al . Partial breast irradiation with interstitial 60Co brachytherapy results in frequent grade 3 or 4 toxicity: evidence based on a 12-year follow-up of 70 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:1022-33. |
|32.||Perera F, Yu E, Engel J, Holliday R, Scott L, Chisela F, et al . Patterns of breast recurrence in a pilot study of brachytherapy confined to the lumpectomy site for early breast cancer with six years′ minimum follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:1239-46. |
|33.||Berle L, Wazer D, Graham R, et al. : Toxicity, local control and cosmesis after interstitial partial breast HDR brachytherapy alone for T1/T2 breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2004; 71:74, (abstr, suppl). |
|34.||Krishnan L, Jewell WR, Tawfik OW, Krishnan EC. Breast conservation therapy with tumor bed irradiation alone in a selected group of patients with stage I breast cancer. Breast J 2001;7:91-6. |
|35.||Wazer DE, Berle L, Graham R, Chung M, Rothschild J, Graves T, et al . Preliminary results of a phase I/II study of HDR brachytherapy alone for T1/T2 breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:889-97. |
|36.||Sarin R, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, Sharma V, Deore SM. Therapeutic factors influencing the cosmetic outcome and late complications in the conservative management of early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol.Phys 1993;27:285-92. |
|37.||Limbergen E, Mazeron J GEC-ESTRO guidelines for breast cancer brachytherapy: 445-454. |
|38.||Li C, Wilson PB, Levine E, Barber J, Stewart AL, Kumar S. TGF- β1levels in pre-treatment plasma identify breast cancer patients at risk of developing post-radiotherapy fibrosis. Int J Cancer (Pred. Oncol), 1999;84:155-9. |
|39.||Veronesi A, de Giacomi C, Magri MD, Lombardi D, Zanetti M, Scuderi C, et al. Familial breast cancer: Characteristics and outcome of BRCA 1-2 positive and negative cases. BMC Cancer 2005;5:70. |
|40.||Ozaslan C, Kuru B. Lymphedema after treatment of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2004;187:69-72. |
|41.||Del Bianco P, Zavagno G, Burelli P, Scalco G, Barutta L, Carraro P, et al . Morbidity comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy versus conventional axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer patients: Results of the sentinellae GIVOM Italian randomised clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34:508-13. |
|42.||Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:599-609. |
|43.||Deutsch M, Land S, Begovic M, Sharif S. The incidence of arm edema in women with breast cancer randomized on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project study B-04 to radical mastectomy versus total mastectomy and radiotherapy versus total mastectomy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70-1020-4. |
|44.||Keisch M, Vicini F, Scroggins T, Hebert M, White J, Kuske R, et al . J. Thirty-Nine Month Results with the MammoSite Brachytherapy Applicator: Details Regarding Cosmesis, Toxicity and Local Control in Partial Breast Irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; Volume 63, Number 2, S6(10). |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9]
|This article has been cited by|
||A multicentre observational study evaluating image-guided radiotherapy for more accurate partial-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy: comparison with standard imaging technique
| ||Emma J Harris,Mukesh Mukesh,Rajesh Jena,Angela Baker,Harry Bartelink,Corrinne Brooks,June Dean,Ellen M Donovan,Sandra Collette,Sally Eagle,John D Fenwick,Peter H Graham,Jo S Haviland,Anna M Kirby,Helen Mayles,Robert A Mitchell,Rosalind Perry,Philip Poortmans,Andrew Poynter,Glyn Shentall,Jenny Titley,Alistair Thompson,John R Yarnold,Charlotte E Coles,Philip M Evans |
| ||Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation. 2014; 1(3): 1 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Conformal breast irradiation with the arm of the affected side parallel to the body
| ||S. Vaegler,K. Bratengeier,G. Beckmann,M. Flentje |
| ||Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2013; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Dosimetric comparison of normal structures associated with accelerated partial breast irradiation and whole breast irradiation delivered by intensity modulated radiotherapy for early breast cancer after breast conserving surgery
| ||S. Wu,Z. He,J. Guo,F. Li,Q. Lin,X. Guan |
| ||Clinical and Translational Oncology. 2013; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Relationship between irradiated breast volume and late normal tissue complications: A systematic review
| || Mukesh, M., Harris, E., Jena, R., Evans, P., Coles, C. |
| ||Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2012; 104(1): 1-10 |
||Use of Topical Superoxide Dismutase in the Management of Radiation-induced Fibrosis: A Neglected Opportunity?
| ||Christian Diehl |
| ||journal of Cancer Therapeutics and Research. 2012; 1(1): 7 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||A comparison of quality of life of early breast cancer patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation in China
| ||Zhen-Yu He, Qin Tong, San-Gang Wu, Feng-Yan Li, Huan-Xin Lin, Xun-Xing Guan |
| ||Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2011; |
|[VIEW] | [DOI]|
||Feasibility and acute toxicity of 3-dimensional conformal external-beam accelerated partial-breast irradiation for early- stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery in Chinese female patients
| ||Li, F.-Y., He, Z.-Y., Xue, M., Chen, L.-X., Wu, S.-G., Guan, X.-X. |
| || Chinese Medical Journal. 2011; 124(9): 1305-1309 |
||Comparison of radiation-induced fatigue across 3 different radiotherapeutic methods for early stage breast cancer
| ||Neil K. Taunk, Bruce G. Haffty, Sining Chen, Atif J. Khan, Carl Nelson, Dorothy Pierce, Sharad Goyal |
| ||Cancer. 2011; : n/a |
|[VIEW] | [DOI]|
||Mammographic Appearance Following Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation by Using MammoSite Brachytherapy1
| ||Haitham M. Ahmed,Pamela J. DiPiro,Phillip M. Devlin,My-Linh Nguyen,Jennifer R. Bellon |
| ||Radiology. 2010; 255(2): 362 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
|| Mammographic appearance following accelerated partial breast irradiation by using mammosite brachytherapy
| ||Ahmed, H.M., Dipiro, P.J., Devlin, P.M., Nguyen, M.-L., Bellon, J.R. |
| ||Radiology. 2010; 255(2): 362-368 |
||Irradiated Autologous Breast Reconstructions: Effects of Patient Factors and Treatment Variables
| ||Frank P. Albino,Peter F. Koltz,Marilyn N. Ling,Howard N. Langstein |
| ||Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2010; : 1 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Impact of residual and intrafractional errors on strategy of correction for image-guided accelerated partial breast irradiation
| ||Cai, G. and Hu, W.-G. and Chen, J.-Y. and Yu, X.-L. and Pan, Z.-Q. and Yang, Z.-Z. and Guo, X.-M. and Shao, Z.-M. and Jiang, G.-L. |
| ||Radiation Oncology. 2010; 5(1) |
||Irradiated autologous breast reconstructions: Effects of patient factors and treatment variables
| ||Albino, F.P. and Koltz, P.F. and Ling, M.N. and Langstein, H.N. |
| ||Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2010; 126(1): 12-16 |
||Radiobiological Comparison of Hypofractionated Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation (APBI) and Single-Dose Intraoperative Radiotherapy (IORT) with 50-kV X-Rays
| ||Carsten Herskind, Frederik Wenz |
| ||Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2010; 186(8): 444 |
|[VIEW] | [DOI]|
||Accelerated partial breast irradiation technique for whole-breast radiotherapy: A concern
| ||Wiwanitkit, V. |
| ||Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2009; 5(4): 331 |
| ||Wadasadawala, T., Sarin, R., Budrukkar, A., Jalali, R., Anusheel, M., Badwe, R. |
| ||Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2009; 5(4): 332 |