6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Could a Personalized Strategy Using Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation be an Advantage for Elderly Patients? A Systematic Review of the Literature and Multidisciplinary Opinion

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction. Elderly patients are underrepresented from a majority of clinical trials and the choice of the best treatment becomes a challenge. The optimal treatment should be personalized and based on a multidisciplinary approach that includes radiation oncologists, surgeons, geriatricians, medical oncologists, social workers, and support services. The global evaluation of the patients and the creation of nomograms may facilitate the definition of long-term treatment benefits minimizing the use of unnecessary therapy. Material and Method. A systematic research using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library was performed to identify full articles analyzing the efficacy of APBI in elderly patients with breast cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for ongoing or recently completed trials, and PROSPERO was searched for ongoing or recently completed systematic reviews.

          Results

          Seven papers fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The number of evaluated patients was 405 and the median age was 77.7 years. The disease-free survival (DFS) range was 96.1%–100%, the grade 3-4 toxicity range was 0%–6.6%, the cancer-specific survival (CSS) range was 97.9%–100%, and the overall survival (OS) range was 87%–100%. All studies reported excellent/good cosmetic results in a range of 74% to 99%.

          Conclusion

          Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) results in a safe and effective substitute for the adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in selected elderly early-stage breast cancer patients. Based on the relatively low toxicity, APBI should be advised in selected patients with life expectancies larger than 5–10 years.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

          Intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons allows the substitution of conventional postoperative whole breast irradiation with one session of radiotherapy with the same equivalent dose during surgery. However, its ability to control for recurrence of local disease required confirmation in a randomised controlled trial. This study was done at the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). Women aged 48-75 years with early breast cancer, a maximum tumour diameter of up to 2·5 cm, and suitable for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (using a random permuted block design, stratified for clinical tumour size [<1·0 cm vs 1·0-1·4 cm vs ≥1·5 cm]) to receive either whole-breast external radiotherapy or intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons. Study coordinators, clinicians, and patients were aware of the assignment. Patients in the intraoperative radiotherapy group received one dose of 21 Gy to the tumour bed during surgery. Those in the external radiotherapy group received 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy, followed by a boost of 10 Gy in five fractions. This was an equivalence trial; the prespecified equivalence margin was local recurrence of 7·5% in the intraoperative radiotherapy group. The primary endpoint was occurrence of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrences (IBTR); overall survival was a secondary outcome. The main analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01849133. 1305 patients were randomised (654 to external radiotherapy and 651 to intraoperative radiotherapy) between Nov 20, 2000, and Dec 27, 2007. After a medium follow-up of 5·8 years (IQR 4·1-7·7), 35 patients in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and four patients in the external radiotherapy group had had an IBTR (p<0·0001). The 5-year event rate for IBRT was 4·4% (95% CI 2·7-6·1) in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and 0·4% (0·0-1·0) in the external radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 9·3 [95% CI 3·3-26·3]). During the same period, 34 women allocated to intraoperative radiotherapy and 31 to external radiotherapy died (p=0·59). 5-year overall survival was 96·8% (95% CI 95·3-98·3) in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and 96·9% (95·5-98·3) in the external radiotherapy group. In patients with data available (n=464 for intraoperative radiotherapy; n=412 for external radiotherapy) we noted significantly fewer skin side-effects in women in the intraoperative radiotherapy group than in those in the external radiotherapy group (p=0·0002). Although the rate of IBTR in the intraoperative radiotherapy group was within the prespecified equivalence margin, the rate was significantly greater than with external radiotherapy, and overall survival did not differ between groups. Improved selection of patients could reduce the rate of IBTR with intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons. Italian Association for Cancer Research, Jacqueline Seroussi Memorial Foundation for Cancer Research, and Umberto Veronesi Foundation. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

            As more and more cancers occur in elderly people, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the necessity of integrating geriatric parameters in the treatment of their patients. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to review the evidence on the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted. Several biological and clinical correlates of aging have been identified. Their relative weight and clinical usefulness is still poorly defined. There is strong evidence that a CGA detects many problems missed by a regular assessment in general geriatric and in cancer patients. There is also strong evidence that a CGA improves function and reduces hospitalization in the elderly. There is heterogeneous evidence that it improves survival and that it is cost-effective. There is corroborative evidence from a few studies conducted in cancer patients. Screening tools exist and were successfully used in settings such as the emergency room, but globally were poorly tested. The article contains recommendations for the use of CGA in research and clinical care for older cancer patients. A CGA, with or without screening, and with follow-up, should be used in older cancer patients, in order to detect unaddressed problems, improve their functional status, and possibly their survival. The task force cannot recommend any specific tool or approach above others at this point and general geriatric experience should be used.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              5-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation using sole interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation with boost after breast-conserving surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma of the female breast: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

              In a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for patients with stage 0, I, and IIA breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving treatment was compared with whole-breast irradiation. Here, we present 5-year follow-up results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Oncol
                J Oncol
                JO
                Journal of Oncology
                Hindawi
                1687-8450
                1687-8469
                2020
                28 February 2020
                : 2020
                : 3928976
                Affiliations
                1UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
                2Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
                3Mater Olbia Hospital, Gynecology and Breast Care Center, Olbia, Italy
                4Gemelli Interacts, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
                5Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Istituto di Radiologia, Rome, Italy
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Bruno Vincenzi

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3507-7051
                Article
                10.1155/2020/3928976
                7064828
                ceb8887e-ee74-4a8e-8155-6f7387a1cc02
                Copyright © 2020 Luca Tagliaferri et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 August 2019
                : 27 November 2019
                Categories
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article