Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 20:13:1210879.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1210879. eCollection 2023.

Comparison of intraoperative radiotherapy as a boost vs. simultaneously integrated boosts after breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer

Raluca Stoian  1   2   3 , Jan-Philipp Harald Exner  1   2   3 , Mark Gainey  1   2   3 , Thalia Erbes  3   4 , Eleni Gkika  1   2   3 , Ilinca Popp  1   2   3 , Simon K B Spohn  1   2   3 , David Krug  5 , Ingolf Juhasz-Böss  3   4 , Anca-Ligia Grosu  1   2   3 , Tanja Sprave  1   2   3
Affiliations

Comparison of intraoperative radiotherapy as a boost vs. simultaneously integrated boosts after breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer

Raluca Stoian et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Currently, there are no data from randomized trials on the use of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as a tumor bed boost in women at high risk of local recurrence. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to compare the toxicity and oncological outcome of IORT or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) with conventional external beam radiotherapy (WBI) after breast conserving surgery (BCS).

Methods: Between 2009 and 2019, patients were treated with a single dose of 20 Gy IORT with 50 kV photons, followed by WBI 50 Gy in 25 or 40.05 in 15 fractions or WBI 50 Gy with SIB up to 58.80-61.60 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Toxicity was compared after propensity score matching. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A 1:1 propensity-score matching resulted in an IORT + WBI and SIB + WBI cohort of 60 patients, respectively. The median follow-up for IORT + WBI was 43.5 vs. 32 months in the SIB + WBI cohort. Most women had a pT1c tumor: IORT group 33 (55%) vs. 31 (51.7%) SIB group (p = 0.972). The luminal-B immunophenotype was most frequently diagnosed in the IORT group 43 (71.6%) vs. 35 (58.3%) in the SIB group (p = 0.283). The most reported acute adverse event in both groups was radiodermatitis. In the IORT cohort, radiodermatitis was grade 1: 23 (38.3%), grade 2: 26 (43.3%), and grade 3: 6 (10%) vs. SIB cohort grade 1: 3 (5.1%), grade 2: 21 (35%), and grade 3: 7 (11.6%) without a meaningful difference (p = 0.309). Fatigue occurred more frequently in the IORT group (grade 1: 21.7% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.041). In addition, intramammary lymphedema grade 1 occurred significantly more often in the IORT group (11.7% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.026). Both groups showed comparable late toxicity. The 3- and 5-year local control (LC) rates were each 98% in the SIB group vs. 98% and 93% in the IORT group (LS: log rank p = 0.717).

Conclusion: Tumor bed boost using IORT and SIB techniques after BCS shows excellent local control and comparable late toxicity, while IORT application exhibits a moderate increase in acute toxicity. These data should be validated by the expected publication of the prospective randomized TARGIT-B study.

Keywords: SIB; adjuvant; breast cancer; intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT); radiotherapy; toxicity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DK has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dome, Onkowissen, and Pfizer as well as research funding from Merck KGaA outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier curves regarding OS.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier curves regarding PFS.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Kaplan–Meier curves regarding LC.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans P, Struikmans H, Van den Bogaert W, Barillot I, et al. . Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. N Engl J Med (2001) 345(19):1378–87. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010874 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative G. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, Arriagada R, et al. . Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet (2011) 378(9804):1707–16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P, Weltens C, Fourquet A, Jager J, et al. . 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 Oncol (2015) 16(1):47–56. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71156-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mayinger M, Straube C, Habermehl D, Duma MN, Combs SE. Hypo- vs. normofractionated radiation therapy in breast cancer: a patterns of care analysis in German speaking countries. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother (2020) 25(5):775–9. doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.07.003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choi KH, Ahn SJ, Jeong JU, Yu M, Kim JH, Jeong BK, et al. . Postoperative radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in early breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial of KROG 15-03. Radiother Oncol (2021) 154:179–86. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.043 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources