Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 169, Issue 1, pp 189–196 | Cite as

Patient-reported outcomes of catheter-based accelerated partial breast brachytherapy and whole breast irradiation, a single institution experience

  • Krishan R. Jethwa
  • Mohamed M. Kahila
  • Kristin C. Mara
  • William S. Harmsen
  • David M. Routman
  • Geralyn M. Pumper
  • Kimberly S. Corbin
  • Jeff A. Sloan
  • Kathryn J. Ruddy
  • Tina J. Hieken
  • Sean S. Park
  • Robert W. Mutter
Brief Report



Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and whole breast irradiation (WBI) are treatment options for early-stage breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) between patients receiving multi-channel intra-cavitary brachytherapy APBI or WBI.


Between 2012 and 2015, 131 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or early stage invasive breast cancer were treated with adjuvant APBI (64) or WBI (67) and participated in a PRO questionnaire. The linear analog scale assessment (LASA), harvard breast cosmesis scale (HBCS), PRO-common terminology criteria for adverse events- PRO (PRO-CTCAE), and breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS) were used to assess quality of life (QoL), pain, fatigue, aesthetic and functional status, and breast cosmesis. Comparisons of PROs were performed using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum, Chi square, Fisher exact test, and regression methods.


Median follow-up from completion of radiotherapy and questionnaire completion was 13.3 months. There was no significant difference in QoL, pain, or fatigue severity, as assessed by the LASA, between treatment groups (p > 0.05). No factors were found to be predictive of overall QoL on regression analysis. BCTOS health-related QoL scores were similar between treatment groups (p = 0.52).The majority of APBI and WBI patients reported excellent/good breast cosmesis, 88.5% versus 93.7% (p = 0.37). Skin color change (p = 0.011) and breast elevation (p = 0.01) relative to baseline were more common in the group receiving WBI.


APBI and WBI were both associated with favorable patient-reported outcomes in early follow-up. APBI resulted in a lesser degree of patient-reported skin color change and breast elevation relative to baseline.


Breast Cancer Radiotherapy PROs APBI 



Accelerated partial breast irradiation


Whole breast irradiation


Patient-reported outcomes


Ductal carcinoma in situ


Linear analog scale assessment


Harvard breast cosmesis scale


Patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events


Breast cancer treatment outcome scale


Quality of life


Breast conserving therapy


Intensity modulated radiation therapy


Estrogen receptor


Computed tomography


Planning target volume


High-dose rate


Clinical target volume


Institutional review board


Health-related quality of life


Interquartile range


Groupe européen de curiethérapie of european society for radiotherapy and oncology


National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project



This project was supported by the Mayo Clinic CTSA through Grant Number UL1 TR000135 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Supplementary material

10549_2018_4665_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1465 kb)
10549_2018_4665_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. 1.
    Clarke M et al (2005) Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 366(9503):2087–2106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Correa C et al (2017) Accelerated partial breast irradiation: executive summary for the update of an ASTRO evidence-based consensus statement. Pract Radiat Oncol 7(2):73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute, N.C., NSABP B-39: A randomized phase iii study of conventional whole breast irradiation (wbi) versus partial breast irradiation (pbi) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast CANCERGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Livi L et al (2015) Accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus whole breast irradiation: 5-year survival analysis of a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 51(4):451–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strnad V et al (2016) 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 387(10015):229–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bitter SM et al (2016) WBRT versus APBI: an interim report of patient satisfaction and outcomes. J Contemp Brachyther 8(1):17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garsa AA et al (2013) A prospective longitudinal clinical trial evaluating quality of life after breast-conserving surgery and high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87(5):1043–1050CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He ZY et al (2012) A comparison of quality of life of early breast cancer patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation in China. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):545–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marta GN et al (2015) Accelerated partial irradiation for breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of 8653 women in eight randomized trials. Radiother Oncol 114(1):42–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meattini I et al (2017) Accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity modulated radiotherapy versus whole breast irradiation: health-related quality of life final analysis from the Florence phase 3 trial. Eur J Cancer 76:17–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perrucci E et al (2015) Quality of life and cosmesis after breast cancer: whole breast radiotherapy versus partial breast high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Tumori 101(2):161–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wadasadawala T et al (2009) Quality of life after accelerated partial breast irradiation in early breast cancer: matched pair analysis with protracted whole breast radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 21(9):668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perez M et al (2017) Accelerated partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast radiation therapy: a breast cancer cohort study measuring change in radiation side-effects severity and quality of life. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162(2):329–342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olivotto IA et al (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 31(32):4038–4045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manoharan SR et al (2010) Dosimetry evaluation of SAVI-based HDR brachytherapy for partial breast irradiation. J Med Phys 35(3):131–136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaidya 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(9735):91–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Veronesi U et al (2013) Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet Oncol 14(13):1269–1277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris JR et al (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(2):257–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krishnan L et al (2001) Form or function? Part 2. Objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 91(12):2282–2287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA (2001) Form or function? part 1. subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 91(12):2273–2281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hieken TJ et al (2016) A novel treatment schedule for rapid completion of surgery and radiation in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23(10):3297–3303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Remouchamps VM et al (2003) Significant reductions in heart and lung doses using deep inspiration breath hold with active breathing control and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients treated with locoregional breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55(2):392–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Polgar C et al (2017) 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 18(2):259–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rabinovitch R et al (2016) Long-term update of nrg oncology rtog 0319: a phase 1 and 2 trial to evaluate 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy confined to the region of the lumpectomy cavity for stage 1 and 2 breast carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(5):1054–1059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaitelman SF et al (2017) American brachytherapy society task group report: long-term control and toxicity with brachytherapy for localized breast cancer. Brachytherapy 16(1):13–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baruch Y, Holtom BC (2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat 61(8):1139–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27. A study of accelerated 3 fraction photon,proton or brachytherapy for early invasive and noninvasive breast cancer.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishan R. Jethwa
    • 1
  • Mohamed M. Kahila
    • 1
  • Kristin C. Mara
    • 2
  • William S. Harmsen
    • 2
  • David M. Routman
    • 1
  • Geralyn M. Pumper
    • 1
  • Kimberly S. Corbin
    • 1
  • Jeff A. Sloan
    • 2
  • Kathryn J. Ruddy
    • 3
  • Tina J. Hieken
    • 4
  • Sean S. Park
    • 1
  • Robert W. Mutter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences ResearchMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Division of Medical OncologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations