Advertisement

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 185, Issue 10, pp 656–662 | Cite as

Survival Benefit with Radiation Therapy in Node-Positive Breast Carcinoma Patients

  • Mia VoordeckersEmail author
  • Vincent Vinh-Hung
  • Jan Lamote
  • Annette Bretz
  • Guy Storme
Current Discussion

Background and Purpose:

Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) has been the subject of discussion, especially in patients with one to three positive lymph nodes (≤ 3 pN+) in the axillary dissection. The authors investigated whether postoperative RT provides a survival benefit for pT1–2 pN+ breast cancer patients.

Patients and Methods:

Patients included were selected from the SEER database (NCI – Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, release 2000; n = 24,410) and the UZ Brussel database (1984–2002; n = 1,011) according to the following criteria: women aged 25–95, no previous cancer, unilateral pT1–pT2 breast tumors, total mastectomy (ME) or breast-conserving surgery (BCS), postoperative RT, and an axillary dissection showing at least one pathologic lymph node.

Results:

The overall survival (OS) of patients in the SEER and UZ Brussel databases who received postoperative RT was identical. However, patients in the SEER database who did not receive RT had a significantly worse outcome (p < 0.0001). After ME or BCS, all patients (SEER and UZ Brussel) who had ≥ 4 pN+ and received RT had comparable outcomes after 15 years. The 15-year OS in the subgroup with ME and ≤ 3 pN+ nodes was 57.0% and 46.6% (p = 0.0004) with RT (UZ Brussel) and without RT (SEER), respectively. For BCS and ≤ 3 pN+, the same significant difference in OS at 15 years was seen: 63.8% after RT (UZ Brussel) and 60.4% without RT (SEER; p = 0.0029).

Conclusion:

RT provides a survival benefit in patients with ≤ 3 or ≥ 4 pN+; the indication for postoperative RT should therefore be adapted in future consensus meetings.

Key Words:

Breast carcinoma Postoperative radiotherapy One to three positive axillary nodes 

Überlebensvorteil bei postoperativer Strahlentherapie bei Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom und Lymphknotenbefall

Hintergrund und Ziel:

Der Nutzen einer postoperativen Strahlentherapie (RT) wird diskutiert, insbesondere bei Patientinnen mit einem bis drei befallenen Lymphknoten (≤ 3 pN+). In der vorliegenden Studie wird untersucht, ob die postoperative RT fur Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom im Stadium pT1–2 pN+ einen Überlebensvorteil bietet.

Patienten und Methodik:

Die Patientinnen wurden aus der SEER-Datenbank (NCI – Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, Ausgabe 2000; n = 24 410) und der Datenbank des UZ Brussel (1984–2002; n = 1 011) ausgewahlt. Berücksichtigt wurden folgende Kriterien: Frauen im Alter von 25–95 Jahren, keine Krebserkrankung in der Vorgeschichte, unilaterale Mammakarzinome Stadium pT1–pT2, Mastektomie (ME) oder brusterhaltende Operation (BCS [„breast-conserving surgery“]), postoperative RT und Axilladissektion mit mindestens einem befallenen Lymphknoten.

Ergebnisse:

Das Gesamtüberleben (OS [„overall survival“]) der Patientinnen aus der SEER-Datenbank und der Datenbank des UZ Brussel, die postoperativ bestrahlt worden waren, war identisch. Demgegenüber fand sich bei Patientinnen aus der SEER-Datenbank, die keine postoperative RT erhalten hatten, ein schlechteres Ergebnis (p < 0,0001). Unabhangig von der Art des operativen Eingriffs (ME oder BCS) zeigten alle Patientinnen (SEER und UZ Brussel), die ≥ 4 pN+ aufwiesen und eine RT erhalten hatten, vergleichbare Resultate nach 15 Jahren. Das 15-Jahres-OS in der Untergruppe mit ME und ≤ 3 pN+ betrug 57,0% und 46,6% (p = 0,0004) mit RT (UZ Brussel) bzw. ohne RT (SEER). Bei Patientinnen nach BCS und ≤ 3 pN+ zeigte sich der gleiche signifikante Unterschied im OS nach 15 Jahren: 63,8% nach RT (UZ Brussel) und 60,4% ohne RT (SEER; p = 0,0029).

Schlussfolgerung:

Die RT bietet sowohl fur Patientinnen mit ≤ 3 als auch mit ≥ 4 pN+ einen Uberlebensvorteil; deshalb sollte in künftigen Konsensuskonferenzen die Indikationsstellung für eine postoperative RT angepasst werden.

Schlüsselwörter:

Mammakarzinom Postoperative Strahlentherapie Ein bis drei befallene Lymphknoten 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abo-Madyan Y, Polednik M, Rahn A, et al. Improving dose homogeneity in large breasts by IMRT. Efficacy and dosimetric accuracy of different techniques. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barreau-Pouhaer L, Lê MG, Rietjens M, et al. Risk factors for failure of immediate breast reconstruction with prosthesis after total mastectomy for breast cancer. Cancer 1992;70:1145–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck-Bornholdt HP, Schmidt R, Schwarz RC, et al. Biological isoeffect distributions: consideration of the influence of dose per fraction and overall treatment time. A possible tool in future treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol 1991;167:708–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM. A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: part II. An analysis of long-term complications, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:832–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, et al. Irradiation after immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: outcomes, complications, aesthetic results, and satisfaction among 156 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:877–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Djohan R, Gage E, Bernard S. Breast reconstruction options following mastectomy. Cleve Clin J Med 2008;75:Suppl 1:S17–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dvali LT, Dagum AB, Pang CY, et al. Effect of radiation on skin expansion and skin flap viability in pigs. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:624–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernandez-Delgado J, Lopez-Pedraza MJ, Blasco JA, et al. Satisfaction with and psychological impact of immediate and deferred breast reconstruction. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1430–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fietkau R. Einfluss des Zeitintervalls Operation - Strahlentherapie auf die Behandlungsergebnisse. Strahlenther Onkol 2000;176:452–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitzal F, Gnant M. Breast conservation: evolution of surgical strategies. Breast J 2006;12 (5 Suppl 2):S165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerber B, Krause A, Friese K. Rekonstruktive und plastisch ästhetische Mammaoperationen. Dtsch Ärztebl 2003;8:A474–82.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB, et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodman CM, Miller R, Patrick CW Jr, et al. Radiotherapy: effects on expanded skin. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;110:1080–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gulyban A, Kovacs P, Sebestyen Z, et al. Multisegmented tangential breast fields: a rational way to treat breast cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:262–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harcourt DM, Rumsey NJ, Ambler NR, et al. The psychological effect of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:1060–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krueger EA, Wilkins EG, Strawderman M, et al. Complications and patient satisfaction following expander/implant breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:713–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuske RR, Schuster R, Klein E, et al. Radiotherapy and breast reconstruction: clinical results and dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:339–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lohr F, Heggemann F, Papavassiliu T, et al. Ist die Kardiotoxizität der Radiotherapie im Rahmen des Brusterhalts überhaupt noch relevant, und könnte sie durch Mehrfelder-IMRT gesenkt werden? Strahlenther Onkol 2009;185:222–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludwig V, Schwab F, Guckenberger M, et al. Comparison of wedge versus segmented techniques in whole breast irradiation. Effects on dose exposure outside the treatment volume. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:307–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E, et al. Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:1886–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKeown DJ, Hogg FJ, Brown IM, et al. The timing of autologous latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction and effect of radiotherapy on outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62:488–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    NCCN. Principles of breast cancer reconstruction following mastectomy. v.2.2008. Forth Washington, PA, USA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2008.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    NCI. Cancer therapy evaluation program. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3 0. 2006 Sep 8; CTCAE v3.0. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Cancer Institute, 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petersen C, Baumann M. Was wissen wir über die Mechanismen des Zeitfaktors in der onkologischen Therapie? Strahlenther Onkol 2000;176:443–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pinsolle V, Grinfeder C, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, et al. Complications analysis of 266 immediate breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006;59:1017–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pusic AL, Cordeiro PG. An accelerated approach to tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: experience with intraoperative and rapid postoperative expansion in 370 reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:1871–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reavey P, McCarthy CM. Update on breast reconstruction in breast cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008;20:61–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rezai M, Darsow M, Kummel S, et al. Autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction - overview of techniques, indications and results. Gynäkol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 2008;48:68–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers NE, Allen RJ. Radiation effects on breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:1919–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sauer R, Schulz KD, Hellriegel KP. Strahlentherapie nach Mastektomie - interdisziplinärer Konsensus beendet Kontroverse. Strahlenther Onkol 2001;177:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sautter-Bihl ML, Budach W, Dunst J, et al. DEGRO practical guidelines for radiotherapy of breast cancer I. Breast-conserving therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:661–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sautter-Bihl ML, Sauer R. One more change of paradigm in breast cancer treatment. Postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with one to three lymph node metastases? Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:357–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sautter-Bihl ML, Souchon R, Budach W, et al. DEGRO practical guidelines for radiotherapy of breast cancer II. Postmastectomy radiotherapy, irradiation of regional lymphatics, and treatment of locally advanced disease. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:347–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spear SL, Baker JL Jr. Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96:1119–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strobl B, Janni W, Rjosk D, et al. Efficacy and adverse effects of breast conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer - a long-term study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2002;62:155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tallet AV, Salem N, Moutardier V, et al. Radiotherapy and immediate two-stage breast reconstruction with a tissue expander and implant: complications and esthetic results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:136–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thompson RC, Morgan AM. Investigation into dosimetric effect of a MAGNA-SITE tissue expander on post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Med Phys 2005;32:1640–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tran NV, Chang DW, Gupta A, et al. Comparison of immediate and delayed free TRAM flap breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:78–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tzafetta K, Ahmed O, Bahia H, et al. Evaluation of the factors related to postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:1694–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Warren AG, Morris DJ, Houlihan MJ, et al. Breast reconstruction in a changing breast cancer treatment paradigm. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:1116–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams JK, Carlson GW, Bostwick J III, et al. The effects of radiation treatment after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Woerdeman LA, Hage JJ, Hofland MM, et al. A prospective assessment of surgical risk factors in 400 cases of skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with implants to establish selection criteria. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:455–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Urban &amp; Vogel, Muenchen 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mia Voordeckers
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Vincent Vinh-Hung
    • 1
  • Jan Lamote
    • 2
  • Annette Bretz
    • 3
  • Guy Storme
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiotherapyOncologic Center UZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Oncologic SurgeryOncologic Center UZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of RadiotherapyCentre Hospitalier “Peltzer-La Tourelle”VerviersBelgium
  4. 4.Radiotherapy DepartmentUZ BrusselJetteBelgium

Personalised recommendations