Burchianti, Teena

Objectives: Breast cancer (BC) remains a critical public health issue where early detection significantly improves outcomes. Despite advancements, disparities in screening awareness and access persist, particularly in underserved populations. This study evaluates a comprehensive, technology-driven educational campaign designed to empower individuals to advocate for their breast health, bridging gaps in knowledge and accessibility. Methods: Between 10/1/22 and 12/2/22, a multiplatform campaign was conducted with IRB approval. The initiative utilized traditional media, including televised ads and educational videos, and digital tools such as a mobile app and website in English and Spanish. Central to this campaign was an interactive risk calculator, offering personalized BC screening recommendations. Data collection included user demographics, platform engagement metrics, and the identification of high-risk individuals. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using campaign budget data. Results: The campaign reached 673,920 individuals through televised ads and 152,672 impressions by digital ads. The website garnered 930 unique impressions, while the app recorded 2752 downloads across 131 countries. The risk calculator was completed 637 times, identifying 72 high-risk individuals. Follow-up data revealed ongoing engagement, with the calculator used an additional 1468 times. The cost per conversion was $1.62, and the cost to identify a high-risk individual was $209.27, demonstrating remarkable cost-efficiency. Conclusions: This campaign successfully increased BC awareness and early detection efforts, leveraging a cost-effective, multiplatform approach. The integration of personalized tools like the risk calculator underscores the potential of digital interventions in health education. Future efforts should build on this model to further enhance reach and health outcomes.

Abstract Purpose: To determine the rate of rib fracture in a cohort of patients with breast cancer treated with proton therapy and enrolled on a prospective registry. In series investigating photon therapy for breast cancer, the rib fracture rate ranges from 0.3-13% Methods: From a prospective database, we identified patients treated with proton therapy for breast cancer at our institution between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2020. Clinical and dosimetric data was extracted from the electronic medical record. The cumulative incidence method assessed rib fracture rate; the Fine-Gray test statistic assessed prognostic significance select variables. Results: 225 patients were identified, 223 women and 2 men. Median age at the time of radiation was 57.8 years (range, 25 – 87). 26% of patients were black, 69% white and 5% were other races or race not disclosed. 5% were Hispanic. 74% of patients had left-sided breast cancer, 5% bilateral, and 21% right-sided. DEXA scan was normal in 20%, showed osteopenia in 34%, osteoporosis in 6%, and not performed in 40%. 57% of patients received antiendocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor. For 16% of patients, the breast +/- internal mammary nodes (IMN) were treated, while 32% underwent proton therapy to treat the breast and comprehensive regional lymphatics. 1% of patients had chest wall +/- IMN treated, while 51% underwent proton therapy to treat the chest wall and comprehensive regional lymphatics. 41% of patients were treated with passive scatter proton therapy (n=92); 52% of these had mastectomy. 58% of patients received treatment with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (n=131); 53% of these had mastectomy. A combination of passive scatter and PBS was used for 2 patients (1%). 85% of patients received a boost. Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.2 – 9.1). 97% of patients had > 12 months of follow-up. The 3 year cumulative incidence of in-field rib fracture was 3.7% (95%CI: 1.6%-7.1%). In total, 8 patients developed in-field rib fractures, one symptomatic and 7 identified incidentally on surveillance imaging, for a 0.4% rate of symptomatic rib fracture. Median time from completion of radiation to identification of rib fracture was 1.8 years (range, 0.4-7.4 years). Rib fractures occurred within 2.2 years from radiotherapy completion for seven of the eight patients who experienced this side effect. Three patients developed rib fractures outside of the radiation field, for a cumulative incidence of out-of-field rib fracture of 0.9% (95%CI: 0.2-3.0%). No variables were associated with rib fracture on univariate analysis. Of those with in-field rib fractures, 3 had low and 3 had normal bone density while 2 had not undergone testing; of those with out-of-field rib fractures, 2 had osteopenia and 1 did not have testing. Conclusions: Although a proton beam has higher biological dose deposition at end-of-range than the assumed constant RBE=1.1, the 3 year rate of any in-field rib fractures in our series remains low at 3.7%, with a 0.4% rate of symptomatic rib fracture. Contouring ribs as an OAR and establishing a dose constraint warrants further investigation as a means to maintaining a low rate of rib fracture with proton therapy. Citation Format: Julie Bradley, Xiaoying Liang, Raymond Mailhot Vega, Chunbo Liu, Eric Brooks, Teena Burchianti, Emma Viviers, Roi Dagan, Oluwadamilola Oladeru, Christopher Morris, Nancy Mendenhall. Incidence of rib fracture following treatment with proton therapy for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-10-08.