eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

1/2023
vol. 15
 
Share:
Share:
Original paper

HDR-brachytherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation: Long-term experience from a Japanese institution

Ken Yoshida
1, 2
,
Tadayuki Kotsuma
2, 3
,
Yuji Takaoka
2, 4
,
Setsuo Tamenaga
2
,
Hideya Yamazaki
5
,
Takayuki Nose
6
,
Naoya Murakami
7
,
Koji Inaba
7
,
Hironori Akiyama
8
,
Koji Masui
9
,
Tadashi Takenaka
5
,
Hikaru Kubota
2, 10
,
Nikolaos Tselis
11
,
Norikazu Masuda
12
,
Hiroyuki Yasojima
13
,
Masashi Takeda
14
,
Masayuki Mano
15
,
Satoaki Nakamura
16
,
Keita Utsunomiya
1
,
Noboru Tanigawa
17
,
Eiichi Tanaka
2

  1. Department of Radiology, Kansai Medical University Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  4. Department of Radiology, Saito Yukoukai Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  5. Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
  6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Nippon Medical School Tamanagayama Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
  7. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
  8. Department of Oral radiology, Osaka Dental University, Osaka, Japan
  9. Department of Radiology, Fukuchiyama City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
  10. Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Hospital, Hyogo, Japan
  11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
  12. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
  13. Department of Surgery, Breast Oncology, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  14. Department of Pathology, Wakakusa Daiichi Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  15. Department of Central Laboratory and Surgical Pathology, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  16. Division of Radiation Oncology, Kansai Medical University Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  17. Department of Radiology, Kansai Medical University Hospital, Osaka, Japan
J Contemp Brachytherapy 2023; 15, 1: 1–8
Online publish date: 2023/02/28
Article file
- HDR-brachytherapy.pdf  [0.24 MB]
Get citation
 
 

Purpose

Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) is a standard treatment method following breast conserving surgery (BCS) that has been shown to reduce the local recurrence rate in early-stage breast cancer cases [1-3]. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) has been suggested as a viable alternative to WBRT with high-dose-rate (HDR) multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy (MIB), providing more randomized data available than many other modalities of APBI [4, 5]. The 2018 American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) consensus statement [6] strongly recommends MIB as APBI technique based on two randomized trials with mature follow-up results, demonstrating equivalent rates of local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) compared with WBRT in early-stage breast cancer [7, 8]. Polgár et al. reported results of a phase III clinical trial, where 20-year LC rates at a median 17-year follow-up were 90.4% and 92.1% for 128 MIB and 130 WBRT patients, respectively [7]. Strnad et al. published results of a phase III Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie (GEC-ESTRO) multicenter trial, in which the five-year local control rates at a median 6.6-year follow-up were 98.6% and 99.1% for 633 MIB and 551 WBRT patients, respectively [8].

Although there have been several non-randomized MIB trials, no randomized trials have yet been conducted on MIB in Japan. The first non-randomized MIB-APBI trial started in 1998, and showed promising preliminary results [9]. This trial used the open cavity implantation technique during BCS, and MIB was shown as a suitable treatment method for smaller breast size Japanese women. The dose-fraction schedule was 36 to 42 Gy in six to seven fractions, which generated a LC rate of 95% at a median follow-up of 52 months without excessive adverse events. A subsequent trial was conducted at National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital in 2002 using a similar protocol achieving a LC rate of 96%, thus confirming the results reported in the former study [10]. However, the complication rate was higher, with overall 16% of wound complications and 4% of rib fractures. Based on these preliminary results, we conducted the first multi-institutional prospective study in Japan using 36 Gy in six fractions [11], with a LC rate of 100% at a short-term follow-up of median 42 months [12]. At present, the longest follow-up MIB results in Japan were reported by Sato et al. The authors reported on 516 MIB patients using a dose-fraction schedule of 32 Gy in eight fractions, achieving a LC rate of 97.5% with a median follow-up of 53.1 months [13]. In order to confirm these data, we updated in this report our oncological outcomes on 45 MIB patients extending the median follow-up from 31 months [10] to 10 years.

Material and methods

APBI treatment and management policy

This research project was approved by the local institutional review board. Our treatment technique evolved over three periods while encompassing patients with the following inclusion criteria: 1. Invasive or non-invasive ductal or invasive lobular carcinoma without distant metastases; 2. Patient’s age < 80 years without a history of collagen vascular diseases or prior thoracic irradiation; and 3. ECOG performance status < 3.

During the first period from June 2002 to June 2003, we performed APBI on three patients as a pilot study. All three patients were treated using the open cavity implantation technique, receiving a dose of 36 Gy in six fractions. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the excisional cavity plus a margin of 3 cm. Prophylactic antibiotics were applied throughout the entire treatment period until the completion of MIB. Based on the results obtained within this pilot setting, 20 patients were treated in the second period as part of phase I/II studies. starting in June 2003 (local institutional review board trial number, 0329). CTV was defined as in period one based on open cavity surgery; however, prophylactic antibiotics were administered only during applicator implantation and not during irradiation period. This approach was discontinued after 23 patients due to an unexpectedly high-rate of wound complications (with or without infection) in 7 patients.

Under consideration of these findings, we modified our protocol in the third period, which was initiated in October 2004. As a part of our adaptions, we re-introduced the use of prophylactic antibiotics throughout the entire treatment. Although no clinical data showing the importance of the use of prophylactic antibiotics have been published, some reports have observed the usage of prophylactic antibiotics at that time [14-18]. Therefore, we changed our protocol. Moreover, we excluded patients with > 4 axillary lymph node metastases because new evidence was prevalent [19]. In addition, CTV was reduced by limiting the safety margin around the excisional cavity at 2 cm compared with initial 3 cm, according to the RTOG 9517 protocol. With that protocol, 54 patients were treated using the closed cavity technique (with implantation being performed after complete wound healing following BCS), and nine patients were treated using the open cavity technique.

During the third period, the patients with tumor size larger than 3 cm, history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, positive surgical margin, and age less than 40 years old were excluded according to Groupe Européen de Curie-thérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) 2009 recommendations [20] and Japanese prospective multi-institutional feasibility study protocol [11] since 2010.

Applicator implantation

Our open cavity technique has been described elsewhere [10]. In short, open cavity applicator implantation commenced immediately after BCS. Oriented by at least four surgical clips, which were placed intra-operatively to enable demarcation of the excisional cavity, open-end metal trocar needles of 200 mm in length were implanted under clinical guidance to define three dimensional implant geometry, and were subsequently replaced by flexible afterloading catheters for HDR irradiation (single-leader flexible implant tube and Oncosmart catheter system®, Nucletron, ELEKTA AB, Sweden). In contrary, closed cavity implantation was performed after complete wound healing, following BCS. In analogy to the open cavity technique, metal trocar needles were implanted under ultrasonography guidance to define multiplane implant geometry, and similarly, subsequently replaced by flexible afterloading catheters. We took care to implant the superficial plane at 7-8 mm under the skin surface to ensure adequate catheter contribution for CTV coverage while avoiding high-dose skin levels. In patients undergoing the open cavity technique, treatment commenced four to five days after implantation, whereas in the closed cavity protocol, within 48 hours after implantation.

Dose planning and treatment

Following applicator implantation, treatment planning was performed. For the first 24 patients, planning was X-ray-based with superimposition of the additional CT data set. For the remaining 62 patients, anatomy-oriented planning was exclusively CT-based. 3D dose optimization was performed using PLATO® or Oncentra Brachy® (Nucletron, ELEKTA AB, Sweden) [21]. Planning target volume (PTV) was defined as CTV excluding the nearest subcutaneous tissue (5 mm from the skin surface). Seventy-eight patients received 36 Gy in six fractions over three days, and eight patients with close/positive surgical margins were treated with 42 Gy in seven fractions over four days. Margin status was evaluated using Japanese 5 mm pathological method [22]. These dose-fraction schedules were defined according to first Japanese clinical trial initiated since 1998 [9]. These schedules were equal to 48 Gy and 56 Gy of equivalent dose in 2 Gy fraction (EQD2) (α/β = 10), because these doses were similar to standard tangential radiotherapy (50 Gy and 60 Gy).

Our planning goals were V100 (volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose) ≥ 90% with a dose non-uniformity ratio [volume receiving 150% of the prescribed dose (V150) divided by V100, DNR] ≤ 0.35. Maximum point dose of the skin was set to be ≤ 90% of the prescribed reference dose. Ninety percent of 36 Gy in 6 fractions and 42 Gy in 7 fractions were equal to 54 Gy and 64 Gy of EQD2 (α/β = 3), respectively. These doses were also similar to standard tangential radiotherapy (50 Gy and 60 Gy). In all cases, treatments were performed using an iridium-192 HDR afterloading system (microSelectron-HDR®, Nucletron, ELEKTA AB, Sweden). All patients were treated after signing a written informed consent.

Analysis

Primary endpoint was local control rate, and secondary endpoint was late complication. For the current analysis, the patient’s sample was deduced from our prospectively maintained database and retrospectively analyzed. Using Kaplan-Meier method, the likelihood of events was deduced and thereafter compared using χ-square test. A two-sided p-value of < 0.05 was set as statistically significant. Complications were evaluated using common terminology criteria for adverse events, version 4.0.

To analyze the treatment outcome according to the European and US risk stratifications, 2009 GEC-ESTRO risk stratification [20] and 2018 ABS risk stratification [6] were used. To re-classify our patients according to these stratifications accurately, an estimation was made whether the surgical margin status was clear within 2 mm or not. However, it was impossible because Japanese pathologists did not use an inked margin technique. Japanese pathologist sliced the surgical mammary gland materials in 5 mm intervals, and all the slices were examined microscopically [22]. Pathological tumor mapping in all slices was made, and evaluated the margin status. Therefore, we could estimate < 2 mm or 2 mm margin status for horizontal direction of pathological specimen. Skin direction and pectoral muscle direction were also assessed. However, we could only estimate < 5 mm or 5 mm for vertical direction because specimen had a 5 mm thickness. Six patients were unclassified by this limitation.

Results

Patient characteristics

Eighty-six patients were treated between 2002 and 2011. Patients’ characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median age was 48 years (range, 26-73 years), and the median follow-up was 119 months (range, 13-189 months). All patients underwent BCS for histologically proven adenocarcinoma. Eighty patients were diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, and the remaining six patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. The 2002 Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) classification was applied for T-stage classification. Two patients were classified as pT0, six patients as Tis, 55 patients as pT1, 22 patients as pT2, and one patient as pT3 after BCS. The surgical resection margins were re-classified as adequate (≥ 2 mm) in 68 patients, and as close/positive margin (< 2 mm) in 12 patients. Six patients were unclassified. Axillary lymph node metastases were found in 16 patients with APBI treatment of pN2 patients being terminated in 2004, and of pN1 patients in 2010 in consideration of breast cancer treatment policy changes. Fourteen patients received neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Of those, two were treated with hormone therapy, ten with chemotherapy, and two with both treatments. Seventy-four patients received adjuvant therapy. Of those, 49 were treated with hormone therapy, eight with chemotherapy, and 14 with both treatments. Three patients received a molecularly targeted drug (trastuzumab).

Table 1

Patients’ characteristics

VariablesNumbers
Median age (range)48 (26-73)
Median follow-up period (range)119 (13-189)
Histology
Invasive ductal carcinoma80
Ductal carcinoma in situ6
ypT-stage
T02
Tis6
T155
T222
T31
N-stage
N070
Nmi1
N112
N23
Cut-end status
Negative68
Positive12
Not accessible6
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy12
Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy4
Adjuvant chemotherapy22
Adjuvant hormonal therapy63
Adjuvant molecular targeted drug3

Dosimetry

A median of 12 interstitial applicators (range, 6-18 applicators) were used in order to generate two or three plane implants covering a median PTV of 45.7 cc (range, 10.3-215.4 cc). The median V100, V150, and V200 (volume receiving 200% of the prescribed dose) were 188.6 cc (range, 73.0-315.1 cc), 51.7 cc (range, 19.8-82.6 cc), and 19.2 cc (range, 9.0-31.1 cc), respectively. The median DNR was 0.30 (range, 0.2-0.59). Nine of the 86 patients (10%) had a DNR > 0.35.

The median maximum skin surface dose (skin point dose) per fraction was 4.8 Gy (range, 3.3-15.0 Gy), with a median total maximum skin surface dose of 29.4 Gy (range, 19.8-90.0 Gy). The median maximum lung surface dose (lung point dose) per fraction was 4.2 Gy (range, 2.0-6.3 Gy), with a median total maximum lung surface dose of 25.8 Gy (range, 12.0-44.1 Gy).

Treatment outcomes

Treatments were completed in all patients without post-interventional complications needing therapy, interruptions due to acute radiogenic adverse events, or technical issues affecting treatment fraction execution.

At a median follow-up of 119 months (range, 13-189 months), the 5- and 10-year LC rates for the entire cohort were 94% and 93%, respectively (Figure 1). The 5- and 10-year OS rates for the entire cohort were 92% and 88%, respectively. Overall, six local recurrences occurred at 2, 9, 18, 27, 48, and 84 months after MIB, respectively. All recurrent lesions were actual infield recurrences or in the low-dose spillage volume around PTV. When classifying our patients according to the 2009 GEC-ESTRO risk stratification scheme, six patients were classified as low-risk, 9 as intermediate-risk, and 69 as high-risk patients for APBI. Two cases were unclassified because we could not define the surgical margin status. The 10-year LC rate was 100%, 100%, and 91% for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively (Figure 2A). In relation to the 2018 American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) risk stratification scheme, 21 patients were classified into the APBI acceptable group, and 63 into the APBI unacceptable group. Two patients were unclassified because we could not define the surgical margin status. The 10-year LC rate was 100% and 90% for acceptable and unacceptable patients, respectively (Figure 2B).

Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier curve for actuarial local control and overall survival rates of all patients

/f/fulltexts/JCB/50246/JCB-15-50246-g001_min.jpg
Fig. 2

A) Kaplan-Meier curve for actuarial local control rates based on the 2009 Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) risk stratification. B) Kaplan-Meier curve for actuarial local control rates based on the 2018 American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) risk stratification

/f/fulltexts/JCB/50246/JCB-15-50246-g002_min.jpg

We excluded patients with > 4 axillary lymph node metastases, tumor size larger than 3 cm, history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, positive surgical margin, and age less than 40 years old since 2004 or 2010. Until exclusion, 36 patients were already treated. The-10-year LC rate was 89%.

Distant metastasis was documented in 13 patients (15%), with no cases of exclusive regional failure in the entire cohort. Ten patients died so far. In eight cases, the cause of death was breast cancer, and in the remaining two intercurrent diseases.

Acute complications

No case of ≥ grade 3 dermatitis was observed, and no patient required analgetic treatment for < grade 2 skin reactions. Wound complications were observed in 7 patients (8%), all of whom were treated during the second period of our protocol evolution with open cavity surgery, and prophylactic antibiotics only during applicator implantation but not during fractionated HDR irradiation. Of those, three patients required wound re-opening and drainage for symptomatic infection. The remaining seven patients were treated conservatively. No wound complications were observed in any of the patients who received prophylactic antibiotics throughout MIB and underwent closed cavity implantation. Risk factors for wound complications were omission of prophylactic anti-- biotics during MIB, open cavity implantation, and larger V100 values (Table 2).

Table 2

Comparison of background between wound trouble (+) and (–) groups

VariablesWound trouble incidence rateP-value
Antibiotics(–)(+)
10/20 (50%)0/66 (0%)< 0.0001
ImplantOpenClose
10/32 (31%)0/54 (0%)< 0.0001
V100%> 190 cc< 190 cc
7/16 (44%)3/70 (4%)< 0.0001
Maximum skin dose*≥ 5 Gy< 5 Gy
7/35 (20%)3/46 (7%)0.07
DNR> 0.3< 0.3
3/40 (8%)7/46 (15%)0.27
Chemotherapy(+)(–)
5/32 (16%)5/54 (9%)0.37
Age< 45 years old> 45 years old
4/34 (12%)6/52 (12%)0.97

[i] V100% – volume encompassed by 100% prescribed dose, DNR – dose non-uniformity ratio, * five patients could not be evaluated

Late complications

No grade 3 or higher skin reactions were observed. Symptomatic fat necrosis was noted in two patients (2%). It occurred at 15 and 32 months after MIB. Both the patients showed cystic induration. One patient complained of slight pain without any medication intervention.

The dosimetric/volumetric indices of the first patient were V100, V150, V200, and DNR of 211.9 cc, 51.9 cc, 25.8 cc, and 0.24, respectively. In the second case, the respective values for V100, V150, V200, and DNR were 146.7 cc, 40.3 cc, 15.2 cc, and 0.27. Both the patients did not require invasive treatment. No symptomatic radiation pneumonitis was observed within eight patients (9%) with rib pain. In all 8 patients, CT or bone scintigraphy revealed minor rib fracture at implantation level. All cases symptoms had resolved at the time of the latest follow-up.

Discussion

Accelerated partial breast irradiation using MIB is an established treatment method for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in early-stage breast cancer [6-8, 20, 23, 24]. In addition, MIB has been shown effective and safe for adjuvant APBI after second BCS in patients with previous WBRT [25]. Multiple studies with long-term follow-up exceeding nine years reported 10-year LC rates of 90-99%, with OS rates of 72-85% [26-30] (Table 3). We started MIB, and the median follow-up time was 119 months for 86 patients. A number of studies from Japan advocated against the use of MIB for APBI [9-13]. In Japan, this may be due to the high prevalence of young breast cancer patients with relatively small cup sizes [31]. There are several authors reporting from the Asia area [9-13, 29, 32, 33]. Budrukkar et al. reported on 239 Indian patients treated with MIB for APBI [29]. With a median follow-up of 114 months, they analyzed their results in relation to international consensus statements using various classification systems. According to the 2009 GEC-ESTRO risk stratification scheme [16], their LC rates were 89%, 94%, and 87%, for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively. In relation to the 2018 ABS consensus statement [6], LC was 91% and 89% for acceptable and unacceptable patients, respectively. In our series, the respective 10-year LC rates were both 100% for low-risk and intermediate-risk according to the 2009 GEC-ESTRO risk stratification scheme.

Table 3

Treatment results of institutes that reported long-term follow-up results

Hungary [7]RTOG 9517 [26]Washington University [27]St. Maria Hospital [28]Tata Memorial Hospital [30]William Beaumont Hospital [29]Present study
Number of patients1289817513324019986
Median follow-up (years)1712.1109.29.59.69.9
Dose/ fractions36.4 Gy/7 fr.34 Gy/10 fr.34 Gy/10 fr.32 Gy/8 fr.34 Gy/10 fr.32 Gy/8 fr.36-42 Gy/6-7 fr.
Skin13.6% (grade 2-3)N.A.0.6% (grade 3), 25% (grade 1-2)4% (grade 2)N.A.N.A.2% (grade 2)
OthersN.A.N.A.N.A.2% (fat necrosis), 9% (rib pain)
10-year local control rate94%94%92%99%90%95%93%
10-year overall survival rate77%81%85%84%72%88%

From Japan, Sato et al. compared the results of MIB with the outcomes of WBRT as adjuvant treatment following BCS, focusing particularly on patients’ age [34]. Of overall 184 patients, 99 received MIB and 85 WBRT, with patients’ age ranging from 30 to 49 years. The 4-year LC rate was 97.0% for MIB and 97.6% for WBRT, with a 4-year disease-free survival of 97.6% for MIB and 91.4% for WBRT. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of disease control and toxicity along all age sub-groups. However, it does not mean that all high-risk patients should be candidates for APBI, because our treatment results for high-risk (91%) and unacceptable (90%) groups tended to be worse than the other groups. Especially, in the-10-year LC rate of 36 patients with > 4 axillary lymph node metastases, tumor size larger than 3 cm, history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, positive surgical margin, and age less than 40 years old, the rate was 89%. We considered that we must carefully compare the treatment outcome with WBRT to decide the adequate eligibility criteria for Asian woman. At present, our results could only suggest that MIB is an effective treatment option for intermediate-risk patients.

The acute complication rate observed in our study is comparable with profiles reported by other authors. Wound complications were observed in 7 patients (8%), all of whom were treated during the second period of our protocol evolution with open cavity technique. Chen et al. [35] reported on 199 patients with 22 (11%) experiencing symptomatic wound complications. Of those, 14 patients showed an acute infection and eight a delayed tumor bed infection, with 17 of 22 (77%) having been treated with the open implant technique. These data corroborate with our observation that omission of prophylactic antibiotics during treatment and open cavity implantation may be risk factors for wound complications. However, more data are necessary.

Concerning late skin toxicity, this study showed tolerable results (grade 2, 2%) compared with other institutes that reported long-term follow-up outcomes (Table 3). In a large study, Polgár et al. investigated the late complication rate in their GEC-ESTRO trial among 655 patients treated with MIB for adjuvant APBI [36]. No ≥ grade 4 complications were observed, with grade 3 skin reactions documented in only three patients (< 1%). In the current study, no ≥ grade 3 late skin adverse events were noted. Our attempt to reduce skin and lung point dose to < 90% and < 100% of the prescribed dose, respectively, might have contributed to this result. On the other hand, fat necrosis (2%) and minor rib fracture (9%) were seen as non-skin toxicity. At this, Wazer et al. described V150 and V200 as significant risk factors for fat necrosis reporting a V150 of 69 ±11.9 cc and V200 of 22 ±3.3 cc for patients experiencing this complication [37]. In our study, one patient violated this critical dosimetric value with a calculated V200 > 22 cc. Likewise, Ott et al. [38] showed a correlation between V200 and fat necrosis after conserving surgery and APBI in women with breast cancer.

Our results suggest MIB as a safe and effective treatment option for adjuvant APBI even in intermediate-risk Japanese patients. However, there are still few articles from Asian countries. Multi-institutional and multinational studies are desirable.

Conclusions

We reported our single-institute long-term follow-up results from Japan. Adjuvant APBI using MIB is associated with favorable long-term oncological outcomes in Japanese patients for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and acceptable groups of patients.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (17K10496, 21K07571).

We would like to thank Mr. Minoru Harada, Toshiaki Tarui, Mari Mikami Ueda, Masato Kumon, Yutaka Tsujimoto, Mitsuhiro Higashinoya, Iori Sumida, Kazuhiko Sato (Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital), other radiation technologist/physicists, and the staff of the departments of radiology, anesthesiology, and operating room, for their various assistance during the completion of this paper.

Disclosure

Ken Yoshida assumes an advisory role of Chiyoda Technol dealing with remote afterloader (microSelectron-HDR®) in Japan. The rest of the authors report no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J 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.

2 

Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Favourable and unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radiotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2000; 355: 1757-1770.

3 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Version 3. 2019 (2019), https://www2.trikobe.org/nccn/guideline/breast/english/breast.pdf; 2019 (accessed 27 April 2020).

4 

King TA, Bolton JS, Kuske RR et al. Long-term results of wide-field brachytherapy as the sole method of radiation therapy after segmental mastectomy for T(is,1,2) breast cancer. Am J Surg 2000; 180: 299-304.

5 

Keynes G. The place of radium in the treatment of cancer of the breast. Ann Surg 1937; 106: 619-630.

6 

Shah C, Vicini F, Simona F et al. The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation. Brachytherapy 2018; 17: 154-170.

7 

Polgár C, Major T, Fodor J et al. Breast-conserving surgery followed by partial or whole breast irradiation: Twenty-year results of a phase 3 clinical study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 109: 998-1006.

8 

Strnad V, Ott OJ, Hildebrandt G et al. 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. Lancet 2016; 387: 229-238.

9 

Nose T, Komoike Y, Yoshida K et al. A pilot study of wider use of accelerated partial breast irradiation: intraoperative margin-directed re-excision combined with sole high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy. Breast Cancer 2006; 13: 289-299.

10 

Yoshida K, Nose T, Masuda N et al. Preliminary result of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer 2009; 16: 105-112.

11 

Otani Y, Nose T, Dokiya T et al. A Japanese prospective multi-institutional feasibility study on accelerated partial breast irradiation using interstitial brachytherapy: treatment planning and quality assurance. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10: 126.

12 

Yoden E, Nose T, Otani Y et al. Uncertainty of cosmetic evaluation after accelerated partial breast irradiation: interim analysis of a Japanese prospective multi-institutional feasibility study. Jpn J Radiol 2017; 35: 381-388.

13 

Sato K, Fuchikami H, Takeda N et al. Efficacy of single-plane implant technique in partial breast brachytherapy in small-breasted patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 106: 830-837.

14 

Arthur DW, Koo D, Zwicker RD et al. Partial breast brachy-therapy after lumpectomy: low-doserate and high-dose-rate experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 681-689.

15 

Chen PY, Vicini FA, Benitez P et al. Long-term cosmetic results and toxicity after accelerated partial-breast irradiation: a method of radiation delivery by interstitial brachytherapy for the treatment of early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 2006; 106: 991-999.

16 

Baglan KL, Martinez AA, Frazier RC et al. The use of high-dose-rate brachytherapy alone after lumpectomy in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 50: 1003-1011.

17 

Stevens MJ, Cooper SG, Cross P et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation using interstitial high dose rate iridium brachytherapy: Early Australian experience and review of the literature. Australas Radiol 2006; 50: 143-151.

18 

Slampa P, Soumarova R, Ruzickova J et al. Pilot study of sole conformal peroperative interstitial brachyradiotherapy of early stage breast carcinoma using high-dose rate afterloading. Neoplasma 2005; 52: 292-296.

19 

Grills IS, Kestin LL, Goldstein N et al. Risk factors for regional nodal failure after breast-conserving therapy: regional nodal irradiation reduces rate of axillary failure in patients with four or more positive lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 658-670.

20 

Polgar C, Limbergen EV, Pötter P et al. Patient selection for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) after breast-conserving surgery: Recommendations of the Groupe Europeen de Curietherapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) breast cancer working group based on clinical evidence (2009). Radiother Oncol 2010; 94: 264-273.

21 

Yoshida K, Nose T, Koizumi M et al. The usefulness of metal markers for CTV-based dose prescription in high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy. J Jpn Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2002; 13: 253-260.

22 

Ohsumi S, Nishimura R, Masuda N et al. A prospective analysis of two studies that used the 5-mm interval slices and 5-mm marginfree method for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breastconserving surgery without radiotherapy. Breast Cancer 2023; 30: 131-138.

23 

Smith BD, Arthur DW, Buchholz TA et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation consensus statement from the american society for radiation oncology (ASTRO). Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2009; 74: 987-1001.

24 

Strnad V, Krug D, Sedlmayer F et al. DEGRO practical guideline for partial-breast irradiation. Strahlenther Onkol 2020; 196: 749-763.

25 

Chatzikonstantinou G, Strouthos I, Scherf C et al. Interstitial multicatheter HDR-brachytherapy as accelerated partial breast irradiation after second breast-conserving surgery for locally recurrent breast cancer. J Radiat Res 2021; 62: 465-472.

26 

White J, Winter K, Kuske RR et al. Long-term cancer outcomes from Study NRG Oncology/RTOG 9517: A phase 2 study of accelerated partial breast irradiation with multicatheter brachytherapy after lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95: 1460-1465.

27 

Gabani P, Cyr AE, Zoberi JE et al. Long-term outcomes of APBI via multicatheter interstitial HDR brachytherapy: Results of a prospective single-institutional registry. Brachytherapy 2018; 17: 171-180.

28 

Maranzano E, Arcidiacono F, Italiani M et al. Accelerated partial-breast irradiation with high-dose-rate brachytherapy: Mature results of a Phase II trial. Brachytherapy 2019; 18: 627-634.

29 

Budrukkar A, Telkhade T, Wadasadawala T et al. A comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of accelerated partial breast irradiation using interstitial brachytherapy as per GEC-ESTRO, ASTRO, updated ASTRO, and ABS guidelines. Brachytherapy 2020; 19: 337-347.

30 

Antonucci JV, Wallace M, Goldstein NS et al. Differences in patterns of failure in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation: a matched-pair analysis with 10-year follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 447-452.

31 

Yoshimoto M, Tada K, Hori H et al. Improvement in the prognosis of Japanese breast cancer patients from 1946 to 2001–an institutional review. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004; 34: 457-462.

32 

Yeo SG, Kim J, Kwak GH et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation using multicatheter brachytherapy for select early-stage breast cancer: local control and toxicity. Radiat Oncol 2010; 5: 56.

33 

Koh YV, Tan PW, Buhari SA et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation in an Asian population: dosimetric findings and preliminary results of a multicatheter interstitial program. Onco Targets Ther 2016; 9: 5561-5566.

34 

Sato K, Mizuno Y, Fuchikami H et al. Impact of young age on local control after partial breast irradiation in Japanese patients with early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2017; 24: 79-85.

35 

Chen PY, Vicini FA, Benitez P et al. Long-term cosmetic results and toxicity after accelerated partial-breast irradiation: a method of radiation delivery by interstitial brachytherapy for the treatment of early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 2006; 106: 991-999.

36 

Polgár C, Ott OJ, Hildebrandt G et al. Late side-effects and cosmetic results of accelerated partial breast irradiation with interstitial brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma of the female breast: 5-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 259-268.

37 

Wazer DE, Kaufman S, Cuttino L et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: an analysis of variables associated with late toxicity and long-term cosmetic outcome after high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64: 489-495.

38 

Ott OJ, Schulz-Wendtland R, Uter W et al. Fat necrosis after conserving surgery and interstitial brachytherapy and/or external-beam irradiation in women with breast cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2005; 181: 638-644.

Copyright: © 2023 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.