• Contact Us
  • Indexing
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Open Access
  • Journals
  • Home
  • ISSN: 2373-9436
    J Cancer Biol Res 2(1): 1041.
    Submitted: 25 February 2014; Accepted: 03 April 2014; Published: 07 April 2014
    Special Issue entitled:
    Breast Cancer Therapeutics
    Advances in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy and the Impact on Quality of Life
    Sameer Berry1,2*
    1School of Medicine, Oakland University, USA
    2Department of Radiation Oncology, Summa Health System, USA
    *Corresponding author: Chirag Shah, Department of Radiation Oncology, Summa Health System, 161 North Forge, Akron, Ohio, USA, Tel: (330)-375-3557; Fax: (330)-375- 3557; Email: @
    BCT: Breast Conserving Therapy; BCS: Breast Conserving Surgery; WBI: Whole Breast Irradiation; APBI: Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation; START: Standardization of Breast Radiotherapy; ASBS: The American Society of Breast Surgeons; 3D-CRT: 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy; IMRT: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; RAPID: Randomized Trial Of Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation; SLNB: Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; ALND: Axillary Lymph Node Dissection; DCIS: Ductal Carcinoma In Situ; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

    Breast cancer represents the most common non-cutaneous cancer amongst women in the United States with over 300,000 cases diagnosed each year [1]. Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT) represents a breakthrough in the management of breast cancer allowing women to preserve their breast without compromising their cancer outcomes based on long term follow up from several randomized Phase III trials [2,3]. Further, studies have confirmed that women undergoing BCT have improved quality of life as compared to those undergoing mastectomy [4]. While the option of BCT has significantly improved the quality of life in women with breast cancer over the past several decades, recent advances in breast cancer radiotherapy offer the potential to further improve quality of life through reductions in radiotherapy duration, reductions in radiotherapy associated toxicities, the elimination of lymph node dissections, and the elimination of radiation therapy in subsets of women following Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS).
    One significant challenge with adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy is the duration of treatment. A standard course of radiotherapy requires 5-6 ½ weeks of daily treatment delivered to the whole breast followed by a tumor bed boost based on the techniques utilized in the randomized trials comparing mastectomy with BCT and subsequent randomized boost trials [2,3,5]. This length of treatment is one of the key reasons that up to 50% of women in some regions of the country do not receive adjuvant radiotherapy following BCS [6,7]. One potential solution to improve the compliance with adjuvant radiation therapy following BCS is to shorten the course of radiotherapy. This can be achieved with either hypofractionated Whole Breast Irradiation (WBI) or Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI). Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation delivers larger doses of radiation per day reducing treatment duration to 3 weeks or less, with randomized trials confirming low rates of local recurrence with hypofractionated WBI and no difference compared with standard fractionation WBI [8-11]. Whelan et al. reported 10 year outcomes from the Ontario Oncology Group trial; 1,234 women with early stage breast cancer were randomized to either hypofractionated WBI (42.5 Gy in 16 fractions) or standard WBI (50 Gy in 25 fractions) with no difference in rates of local recurrence noted (6.2% v. 6.7%) [8]. Similarly data from the United Kingdom Standardization of Breast Radiotherapy (START) A and B trials confirmed no difference in outcomes with hypofractionated WBI; START A was a three arm trial randomizing women to 50 Gy in 25 fractions, 41.6 Gy in 13 fractions, or 39 Gy in 13 fractions all delivered over 5 weeks. With 9 year follow up, no difference in local control was noted [9]. START B was a two arm trial and randomized women to either 50 Gy in 25 fractions or 40 Gy in 15 fractions delivered in 5 and 3 weeks. Similarly, no difference in outcomes was noted at 10 years [9]. One concern with hypofractionation has been the potential for increased toxicity and worse cosmesis; however, rates of cosmesis and long term complications following radiotherapy were equivalent or reduced with hypofractionated WBI, alleviating concerns with hypofractionated WBI schedules [8-11]. On the contrary, START A found that the 39 Gy arm was associated with reduced toxicities following treatment and START B found the 40 Gy arm to be associated with improved breast appearance and body image [9].
    An alternative to WBI that reduces treatment is APBI, which allows for the completion of adjuvant radiation therapy in one week or less [12]. APBI is different from WBI in that it treats the area surrounding the lumpectomy cavity with a margin rather than the whole breast [12]. APBI can be delivered utilizing interstitial catheters, applicators, or external beam radiation therapy. Randomized trials comparing APBI with WBI are currently underway or recently closed; however, long term data from a randomized trial in Hungary and several studies with long term follow up have demonstrated equivalent local control with APBI and the potential for improved cosmesis and toxicity profiles [13,14]. Polgar recently presented an update of the Hungarian randomized trial that compared WBI with APBI delivered with interstitial brachytherapy or electrons. At 10 years, no difference in clinical outcomes was noted with improved cosmesis noted in the brachytherapy cohort [13]. Similarly a matched pair analysis from William Beaumont Hospital demonstrated no difference in local control between interstitial APBI and WBI at 12 years. While these studies utilized interstitial catheters, more recent techniques including applicators and external beam have been evaluated prospectively with low rates of local recurrence noted. The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBS) MammoSite Registry confirmed the low rates of local recurrence and toxicity in a prospective trial of over 1,400 patients, with final analysis demonstrating a local recurrence rate of less than 5% with few late complications at 5 years [15]. Increasingly, patients are opting for use of APBI as their adjuvant radiotherapy modality and as such guidelines for off protocol utilization have been created [16,17]. Moving forward, APBI may further improve quality of life by reducing treatment duration from one week to 2 days or less; however, further study is required at this time [18].
    Beyond reducing treatment duration, another method to improve quality of life is to reduce the rates of acute and chronic side effects associated with breast radiotherapy. The randomized trials comparing mastectomy with BCT utilized 2-dimensional WBI. However, over the last few decades, 2-dimensional planning has been replaced by 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). More recently, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) has emerged as a radiation therapy technique that allows for the reduction of acute and chronic toxicities in patients undergoing adjuvant breast radiotherapy [19]. Two randomized trials compared IMRT with 2-dimensional radiotherapy and found that IMRT reduced acute and chronic toxicities [20,21]. Pignol found that IMRT led to improved dose distributions and more importantly reductions in the rate of moist desquamation (31% v. 48%) in a randomized study of 330 women [20]. Donovan et al concluded that IMRT reduced rates of palpable in duration and breast appearance change based on a randomized study of 240 patients [21]. The criticism of these trials is the use of 2-dimensional therapy in the control arms, a technique which no longer represents the standard of care. However, non-randomized data has confirmed a reduction in acute and chronic toxicities with the utilization of IMRT as compared to 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy [22-25]. A matched analysis from Fox Chase confirmed a reduction in the rates of desquamation compared with conventional therapy. Because of the cost associated with IMRT, recent studies have attempted to identify subsets of women who benefit the most from the utilization of this technique. These studies have confirmed that while the largest benefit to IMRT is with larger breast women, that all patients benefit from the utilization of IMRT to deliver either standard or hypofractionated WBI [22]. While most data with IMRT is based on WBI there has been study of IMRT with the delivery of APBI. Concerns have been raised regarding potential increased toxicities associated with 3D-CRT APBI based on prospective data from RTOG 0319 and the RAPID trial [26,27]. IMRT offers the potential to reduce these side-effects with studies evaluating the role of IMRT in external beam APBI demonstrating low rates of toxicity [28].
    The introduction of the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) altered the surgical paradigm for management of the axilla in breast cancer and has led to a reduction in the incidence of lymphedema [29]. However, patients still underwent a completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND) when positive nodes were identified at the SLN. Recent data from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z011 trial has changed this; the trial was a phase 3 non-inferiority that randomized women with clinically node negative invasive breast cancer found to have 1-2 positive SLN's to completion ALND or no further axillary treatment as part of breast conserving surgery. All patients underwent post-operative whole breast irradiation with no regional nodal irradiation given. Though the trial failed to complete accrual, no difference in rates of overall survival, disease free survival, local recurrence, or regional recurrence was noted at 5 years [30,31]. These findings have the ability to improve the quality of life for women with limited SLN positivity as sparing them an ALND would likely reduce the rates of lymphedema and shoulder dysfunction while not subjecting them to regional nodal irradiation.
    Finally, one potential area of improvement in quality of life is identifying those patients that do not require adjuvant radiation therapy. In both invasive and non-invasive breast cancers, randomized and prospective studies have consistently demonstrated a local recurrence benefit with the addition of radiation therapy following breast conserving surgery which has been confirmed by meta-analyses [32-35]. It should be noted that these studies utilized clinical (ex. age) and pathologic (ex. grade, size) to risk stratify patients [36]. However, each study has confirmed that there exists no truly low risk group where adjuvant radiation therapy fails to provide a local control benefit. Moving forward, the potential exists for the utilization of tumor genetics to better risk stratify patients who are truly low-risk and therefore do not require adjuvant radiation therapy. Such technology is already in place and has been utilized to risk stratify and quantify the benefit of systemic therapy in patients with invasive breast cancer; importantly, these assays have been validated utilizing prospective data from cooperative group trials [37-39]. However, at this time, there exists limited data on the utilization of such assays for risk stratification with respect to delivery of radiotherapy. For example, Solin utilized a multigene expression assay to examine patients with DCIS treated on the ECOG E5194 trial; however, even the "low-risk" score group had an 11% risk of local recurrence at 10 years [40]. Moving forward, these types of assays must be further refined in the search for a truly low-risk group of patients not requiring adjuvant radiation therapy [41]. Identifying a truly low-risk cohort would eliminate radiation therapy for such patients and improve quality of life.
    Advances in radiation therapy offer the potential for significant improvements in the quality of life of breast cancer patients. Whether it is through innovative treatment techniques and delivery strategies or identifying subsets of patients who can be spared toxicity causing therapy, the potential exists for further improvements in the quality of life of breast cancer patients moving forward.
    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 11-30.
    2. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1233-1241.
    3. Litière S, Werutsky G, Fentiman IS, Rutgers E, Christiaens MR, Van Limbergen E, et al. Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13: 412-419.
    4. Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H, Brenner H. Quality of life over 5 years in women with breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy: a population-based study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008; 134: 1311-1318.
    5. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, Struikmans H, Van den Bogaert W, Fourquet A, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 3259-3265.
    6. Schroen AT, Brenin DR, Kelly MD, Knaus WA, Slingluff CL Jr. Impact of patient distance to radiation therapy on mastectomy use in early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 7074-7080.
    7. Schootman M, Lian M, Deshpande AD, Baker EA, Pruitt SL, Aft R, et al. Temporal trends in area socioeconomic disparities in breast-cancer incidence and mortality, 1988-2005. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 122: 533-543.
    8. Whelan TJ, Pignol JP, Levine MN, Julian JA, MacKenzie R, Parpia S, et al. Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 513-520.
    9. Hopwood P, Haviland JS, Sumo G, Mills J, Bliss JM, Yarnold JR, et al. Comparison of patient-reported breast, arm and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 231-240.
    10. Owen JR, Ashton A, Bliss JM, Homewood J, Harper C, Hanson J, et al. Effect of radiotherapy fraction size on tumour control in patients with early-stage breast cancer after local tumour excision: long-term results of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: 467-471.
    11. FAST Trialists group, Agrawal RK, Alhasso A, Barrett-Lee PJ, Bliss JM, Bliss P, et al. First results of the randomised UK FAST Trial of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer (CRUKE/04/015). Radiother Oncol. 2011; 100: 93-100.
    12. Beitsch PD, Shaitelman SF, Vicini FA. Accelerated partial breast irradiation. J Surg Oncol. 2011; 103: 362-368.
    13. Polgár C, Fodor J, Major T, Sulyok Z, Kásler M. Breast-conserving therapy with partial or whole breast irradiation: ten-year results of the Budapest randomized trial. Radiother Oncol. 2013; 108: 197-202.
    14. Shah C, Antonucci JV, Wilkinson JB, Wallace M, Ghilezan M, Chen P, et al. Twelve-year clinical outcomes and patterns of failure with accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation: results of a matched-pair analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 100: 210-214.
    15. Shah C, Badiyan S, Ben Wilkinson J, et al. Treatment efficacy with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI): final analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite breast brachytherapy trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20: 3279-3285.
    16. Husain ZA, Mahmood U, Hanlon A, Neuner G, Buras R, Tkaczuk K, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation via brachytherapy: a patterns-of-care analysis with ASTRO consensus statement groupings. Brachytherapy. 2011; 10: 479-485.
    17. Smith BD, Arthur DW, Buchholz TA, Haffty BG, Hahn CA, Hardenbergh PH, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation consensus statement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 209: 269-277.
    18. Wilkinson JB, Martinez AA, Chen PY, Ghilezan MI, Wallace MF, Grills IS, et al. Four-year results using balloon-based brachytherapy to deliver accelerated partial breast irradiation with a 2-day dose fractionation schedule. Brachytherapy. 2012; 11: 97-104.
    19. Arthur DW, Morris MM, Vicini FA. Breast cancer: new radiation treatment options. Oncology (Williston Park). 2004; 18: 1621-1629.
    20. Pignol JP, Olivotto I, Rakovitch E, Gardner S, Sixel K, Beckham W, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 2085-2092.
    21. Donovan E, Bleakley N, Denholm E, Evans P, Gothard L, Hanson J, et al. Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2007; 82: 254-264.
    22. Shah C, Wobb J, Grills I, Wallace M, Mitchell C, Vicini FA. Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute and chronic toxicities of breast cancer patients treated with traditional and accelerated whole breast irradiation. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2012; 2: e45-51.
    23. Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Li J, Eisenberg DF, Hanlon AL, Wang L,et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) decreases acute skin toxicity for women receiving radiation for breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2006; 29: 66-70.
    24. Freedman GM, Li T, Nicolaou N, Chen Y, Ma CC, Anderson PR. Breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy reduces time spent with acute dermatitis for women of all breast sizes during radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74: 689-694.
    25. McDonald MW, Godette KD, Butker EK, Davis LW, Johnstone PA. Long-term outcomes of IMRT for breast cancer: a single-institution cohort analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72: 1031-1040.
    26. Chafe S, Moughan J, McCormick B, Wong J, Pass H, Rabinovitch R, et al. Late toxicity and patient self-assessment of breast appearance/satisfaction on RTOG 0319: a phase 2 trial of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy-accelerated partial breast irradiation following lumpectomy for stages I and II breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 854-859.
    27. Olivotto IA, Whelan TJ, Parpia S, Kim DH, Berrang T, Truong PT, et al. Interim cosmetic and toxicity results from RAPID: a randomized trial of accelerated partial breast irradiation using three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 4038-4045.
    28. Lei RY, Leonard CE, Howell KT, Henkenberns PL, Johnson TK, Hobart TL, et al. Four-year clinical update from a prospective trial of accelerated partial breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy (APBIMRT). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 140: 119-133.
    29. Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Land SR, Julian TB, Anderson SJ, Brown AM, et al. Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2010; 102: 111-118.
    30. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011; 305: 569-575.
    31. Guiliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz P, Leitch AM, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010; 252: 426-432.
    32. Wong JS, Chen YH, Gadd MA, Gelman R, Lester SC, Schnitt SJ, et al. Eight-year update of a prospective study of wide excision alone for small low- or intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 143: 343-350.
    33. McCormick B. RTOG 9804: A prospective randomized trial for "good risk" ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), comparing radiation (RT) to observation (OBS). J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1004.
    34. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Land SR. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 478-488.
    35. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Overview of the randomized trials in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:162-177.
    36. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Choosing treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: fine tuning of the University of California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010: 193-196.
    37. Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, Childs BH, Yoshizawa C, Rowley S, et al. Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 4063-4071.
    38. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal, node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomized trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 55-65.
    39. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1183-1192.
    40. Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, Butler SM, Hughes LL, Yoshizawa C, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105: 701-710.
    41. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro AM, Gauthier ML, Berman HK, Waldman F, Bennington J, et al. Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 627-637.
    Cite this article: Berry S (2014) Advances in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy and the Impact on Quality of Life. J Cancer Biol Res 2(1): 1041.
  • Current Issue Highlights
  • BRAT1 was originally identified as a BRCA1 interacting protein [1], however, subsequent studies showed that it also binds to ATM, DNA-PK, and SMC1,

    Mechanisms of detecting and repairing damaged DNA are conserved and controlled through the DNA damage response (DDR).

    JSciMed Central Peer-reviewed Open Access Journals
    10120 S Eastern Ave, Henderson,
    Nevada 89052, USA
    Tel: (702)-751-7806
    Toll free number: 1-800-762-9856
    Fax: (844)-572-4633 (844-JSCIMED)
    E-mail: cancerbiology@jscimedcentral.com
    1455 Frazee Road, Suite 570
    San Diego, California 92108, USA
    Tel: (619)-373-8720
    Toll free number: 1-800-762-9856
    Fax: (844)-572-4633 (844-JSCIMED)
    E-mail: cancerbiology@jscimedcentral.com
    About      |      Journals      |      Open Access      |      Special Issue Proposals      |      Guidelines      |      Submit Manuscript      |      Contacts
    Copyright © 2016 JSciMed Central All Rights Reserved
    Creative Commons Licence Open Access Publication by JSciMed Central is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
    Based on a work at https://jscimedcentral.com/. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://creativecommons.org/.