Copenhagen, Denmark
Onsite/Online

ESTRO 2022

Session Item

Monday
May 09
16:45 - 17:45
Room D4
Breast
John Maduro, The Netherlands;
Meriem Bohli, Tunisia
Proffered Papers
Clinical
17:25 - 17:35
Outcomes of the EORTC 22922/10925 randomised trial according to the technique for nodal irradiation
OC-0934

Abstract

Outcomes of the EORTC 22922/10925 randomised trial according to the technique for nodal irradiation
Authors:

Orit Kaidar-Person1, Catherine Fortpied2, Sandra Hol3, Caroline Weltens4, Carine Kirkove5, Volker Budach6, Karine Peignaux-Casasnovas7, Femke van der Leij8, Ernest Vonk9, Mariacarla Valli10, Nicola Weidner11, Matthias Guckenberger12, Eveline Koiter13, Alain Fourquet14, Harry Bartelink15, Henk Struikmans16, Philip Poortmans17

1Sheba Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Ramat Gan, Israel; 2European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium; 3Institute Verbeeten, Radiation Oncology, Tilburg, The Netherlands; 4University Hospital Leuven, Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium; 5University Hospital Saint Luc, Radiation Oncology, Brussels, Belgium; 6Charité–Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany; 7Centre Georges François Leclerc, Radiation Oncology, Dijon, France; 8University Medical Centre Utrecht, Radiation Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 9Institute for Radiation Oncology RISO, Radiation Oncology, Deventer, The Netherlands; 10Sant Anna Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Como, Italy; 11University Hospital, Tübingen, Radiation Oncology, Tübingen, Germany; 12University Hospital Zurich, Radiation Oncology, Zurich, Switzerland; 13Medisch Spectrum Twente, Radiation Oncology, Enschede, The Netherlands; 14Institut Curie, Radiation Oncology, Paris, France; 15Netherlands Cancer Institute, Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 16Leiden University Medical Centre, Radiation Oncology, Leiden, The Netherlands; 17Iridium Netwerk and University of Antwerp, Radiation Oncology, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

The multicentre EORTC 22922/10925 trial, including between 1996 and 2004 a total of 4004 stage I-III breast cancer patients with involved axillary nodes and/or a medially located primary tumour, showed a significant reduction of breast cancer specific mortality (BCSM) and any recurrence, not translating in improved overall survival (OS), and low absolute rates of side effects at 15.7 years of follow-up. The trial had a specific pre-planned radiation therapy (RT) quality assurance (QA) programme. The trial was conceived after long-term negative effects of older RT techniques became available but before the introduction of modern RT techniques. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the association of RT techniques used for internal mammary and medial supraclavicular (IM-MS) lymph node irradiation on long-term outcomes. 

Material and Methods

An exploratory and descriptive analysis of outcomes was conducted separately for the three RT techniques allowed in the trial: standard [RT based on a fixed set-up combining photon/electron beams to the IM and tangential fields to the breast or chest wall (electrons allowed as well), relative weight of mixed beam, energy and prescription depth based on the assumption that the IMNs lie within 4 cm lateral to the midline, and extends up to a depth of 4 cm] vs. standard-modified [similar to standard with minor adaptation for gantry angle; match line setting; proportion and energy of electrons] vs. individualised technique [mandate individual localisation of IMN for each patient, based on imaging in aim to adapt the beam energies, prescription depths and relative beam weights] as substantiated by the QA procedures. Techniques used were fixed per institution over the duration of the trial.

Results

The number of patients treated by each technique was 2440 (61%) by standard vs. 635 (16%) by standard-modified vs. 929 (23%) patients by individualised technique. The improvements of oncological outcomes in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), OS and BCSM with IM-MS RT compared to no IM-MS RT were larger for patients treated with an individualised technique (Table 1). The increase in 15-year rates of side effects due to IM-MS RT, both scored longitudinally and cross-sectionally, were similar among the techniques (Table 1). 


Table 1: Oncological outcomes and lung and heart toxicity at 15 years according to radiation technique, comparing IM-MS RT to no IM-MS RT

 OS=overall survival; DFS=disease free survival; Breast Cancer Specific =BCS

Conclusion

Even though a straightforward comparison by technique is not possible because of variations in tumour-, patient- and other treatment-related characteristics between institutions, our findings suggest that the use of more individualised RT techniques is associated with higher rates of oncological improvements without increased risks for late side effects.