Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 140, Issue 3, pp 519–525 | Cite as

Objective assessment of cosmetic outcome after targeted intraoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial

  • Mohammed R. S. Keshtgar
  • Norman R. Williams
  • Max Bulsara
  • Christobel Saunders
  • Henrik Flyger
  • Jaime S. Cardoso
  • Tammy Corica
  • Neils Bentzon
  • Nikolaos V. Michalopoulos
  • David J. Joseph
Clinical trial

Abstract

The international randomised targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) trial has demonstrated evidence of non-inferiority between the novel technique of TARGIT (intra-operative radiotherapy with Intrabeam®) and conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in women with early breast cancer in terms of the primary outcome measure of risk of local relapse within the treated breast. Cosmesis is an increasingly important outcome of breast conserving treatment with both surgery and radiotherapy contributing to this. It was unknown if the single high dose of TARGIT may lead to damaging fibrosis and thus impair cosmesis further, so we objectively evaluated the aesthetic outcome of patients within the TARGIT randomised controlled trial. We have used an objective assessment tool for evaluation of cosmetic outcome. Frontal digital photographs were taken at baseline (before TARGIT or EBRT) and yearly thereafter for up to 5 years. The photographs were analysed by BCCT.core, a validated software which produces a composite score based on symmetry, colour and scar. 342 patients were assessed, median age at baseline 64 years (IQR 59–68). The scores were dichotomised into Excellent and Good (EG), and Fair and Poor (FP). There were statistically significant increases in the odds of having an outcome of EG for patients in the TARGIT group relative to the EBRT group at year 1 (OR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.12–3.85, p = 0.021) and year 2 (OR 2.11, 95 % CI 1.0–4.45, p = 0.05). Following a totally objective assessment in a randomised setting, the aesthetic outcome of patients demonstrates that those treated with TARGIT have a superior cosmetic result to those patients who received conventional external beam radiotherapy.

Keywords

Breast cancer Intra-operative radiotherapy TARGIT Cosmesis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The main TARGIT A Trial is funded by the HTA (project ref 07/60/49) ISRCTN34086741 and sites in Australia were funded by a project grant awarded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The authors thank the TARGIT Trialists’ Group for the TARGIT A Trial.

Conflict of interest

Carl Zeiss (the manufacturer of the Intrabeam system) covers travelling expenses for meetings of the TARGIT Trial International Steering Committee and conferences where a presentation about Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy is being made.

Supplementary material

10549_2013_2641_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM et al (2011) Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet 378:1461–1484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) 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 347:1233–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS et al (2010) Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT—a trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 376:91–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siegel R, Desantis C, Virgo K et al (2012) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:220–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurtz J (1995) Impact of radiotherapy on breast cosmesis. Breast 4:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR et al (1985) Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:575–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S (1979) Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5:257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H et al (2007) The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16:429–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N et al (2007) Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 16:456–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ (2007) Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med 40:115–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ et al (1995) Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:753–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliveira HP, Magalhaes A, Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS (2010) An accurate and interpretable model for BCCT.core. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010:6158–6161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cardoso MJ, Magalhaes A, Almeida T et al (2008) Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment? Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:565–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Wild T, Krois W, Fitzal F (2009) Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116:149–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barnett GC, Wilkinson JS, Moody AM et al (2011) Randomized controlled trial of forward-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early breast cancer: interim results at 2 years. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:715–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ivanov O, Dickler A, Lum BY, Pellicane JV, Francescatti DS (2011) Twelve-month follow-up results of a trial utilizing Axxent electronic brachytherapy to deliver intraoperative radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:453–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lemanski C, Azria D, Gourgon-Bourgade S et al (2010) Intraoperative radiotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: results of the Montpellier phase II trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:698–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haley M, Beriwal S, Heron DE et al (2009) MammoSite accelerated partial breast irradiation: a single-institution outcomes analysis with 2 years of follow up. Brachytherapy 8:9–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sacchini V, Beal K, Goldberg J, Montgomery L, Port E, McCormick B (2008) Study of quadrant high-dose intraoperative radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Br J Surg 95:1105–1110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munshi A, Kakkar S, Bhutani R, Jalali R, Budrukkar A, Dinshaw KA (2009) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome in breast conservation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 21:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eaton DJ, Best B, Brew-Graves C et al (2012) In vivo dosimetry for single-fractiontargeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:e819–e824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olivotto IA, Whelan TJ, Parpia S, Kim DH, Berrang T, Truong PT, Kong I, Cochrane B, Nichol A, Roy I, Germain I, Akra M, Reed M, Fyles A, Trotter T, Perera F, Beckham W, Levine MN, Julian JA (2013) 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. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.5511
  24. 24.
    Losken A, Fishman I, Denson DD, Moyer HR, Carlson GW (2005) An objective evaluation of breast symmetry and shape differences using 3-dimensional images. Ann Plast Surg 55:571–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Catanuto G, Spano A, Pennati A, Nava M (2009) Three-dimensional digital evaluation of breast symmetry after breast conservation therapy. J Am Coll Surg 208:166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moyer HR, Carlson GW, Styblo TM, Losken A (2008) Three dimensional digital evaluation of breast symmetry after breast conservation therapy. J Am Coll Surg 207:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C et al (2012) Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:629–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sperk E, Welzel G, Keller A et al (2012) Late radiation toxicity after intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III trial TARGIT A. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:253–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed R. S. Keshtgar
    • 1
  • Norman R. Williams
    • 2
  • Max Bulsara
    • 3
  • Christobel Saunders
    • 4
  • Henrik Flyger
    • 5
  • Jaime S. Cardoso
    • 6
  • Tammy Corica
    • 7
  • Neils Bentzon
    • 5
  • Nikolaos V. Michalopoulos
    • 1
  • David J. Joseph
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Royal Free London NHS Foundation TrustUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Clinical Trials Group, Centre for Clinical Science and TechnologyUCL Medical SchoolLondonUK
  3. 3.Institute of Health and Rehabilitation ResearchUniversity of Notre DameFremantleAustralia
  4. 4.School of SurgeryQEII Medical CentrePerthAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, Herlev HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenHerlevDenmark
  6. 6.INESC TEC and Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  7. 7.Radiation OncologySir Charles Gairdner HospitalNerdlandAustralia
  8. 8.Sir Charles Gairdner HospitalNedlandsAustralia

Personalised recommendations