Cancer Medicine (Oct 2021)

A prospective Phase III trial evaluating patient self‐reported pain and cosmesis in accelerated partial breast irradiation utilizing 3‐D versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy

  • Charles E. Leonard,
  • Yunfei Wang,
  • Lina Asmar,
  • Rachel Y. Lei,
  • Kathryn T. Howell,
  • Phyllis L. Henkenberns,
  • Timothy K. Johnson,
  • Tracy L. Hobart,
  • Shannon P. Tole,
  • Jane M. Kercher,
  • Jodi L. Widner,
  • Lora Barke,
  • Terese Kaske,
  • Dennis L. Carter

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4242
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 20
pp. 7089 – 7100

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Purpose/Objective The primary objective is to examine patient self‐assessment of breast pain and cosmesis between three‐dimensional (3D‐CRT) versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The secondary objective is to evaluate any relationship of treatment planning conformality of both cohorts to patient‐assessed pain. Assessments were performed at interim 12, 24, 36, and 48 months with a final 5‐year assessment. Materials/Methods In total, 656 patients (3D‐CRT n = 328; IMRT n = 328) were randomly assigned to either IMRT or 3D‐CRT accelerated partial breast radiotherapy to 38.5 Gy in 10 BID 3.85 Gy fractions. Results Median follow‐up was 3 years. Multivariate analysis showed that pain severity significantly decreased from baseline to the 12‐month follow‐up visit (<0.001 for both 3D‐CRT and IMRT) in each cohort. There was significantly less pain at 2 (p = 0.002) and 3 years (0.045) in the IMRT arm versus the 3D‐CRT arm when compared to the baseline pain level. There was no difference in patient‐assessed cosmesis at any follow‐up point; however, although MD‐assessed cosmesis showed no difference from years 1 to 4, there was significantly better cosmesis for 3D‐CRT versus IMRT (p = 0.047) at 5 years. There was a significant correlation between a maximum pain score and an increase in the CI100 (indicating less conformity) in the IMRT cohort (p < 0.01) and in the IMRT subgroup when the CI100 was ≤0.37 cohort arm (p = 0.01). Conclusion In the analysis of our primary objective we found that at 2 years, IMRT resulted in more interval improvement in breast pain after baseline when compared to patients treated with 3D‐CRT planning. As seen in our secondary analysis, this may be due to the ability of IMRT to achieve higher conformality (as evidenced by lower CI values) resulting in less fibrosis. There were no differences in patient‐assessed cosmesis or MD‐assessed cosmesis for years 1–4; however, physician‐assessed 5‐year cosmesis was better with 3D‐CRT.

Keywords