Gustafson, Gary

Abstract Background: Conventional WBI after lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. Accelerated PBI appears effective in reducing IBTR by treating only the tumor bed area. As the majority of IBTR occur at or in the vicinity of the tumor bed, we hypothesized that PBI would be as effective as WBI in controlling IBTR. The primary aim of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 was to determine if PBI provides equivalent local tumor control post lumpectomy compared to WBI in pts with early-stage breast cancer. The equivalency test was based on a 50% margin of increase in the hazard ratio (HR=1.5). Secondary endpoints included: overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant disease-free interval (DDFI), and toxicity. Methods: Eligible pts had lumpectomy with histologically-free margins and 0-3 positive axillary nodes. Pts were stratified by stage, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, and intent to receive chemotherapy and then randomized to PBI or WBI. PBI was 10 fractions of 3.4-3.85 Gy, given twice daily with either brachytherapy or 3D external beam radiation. WBI was 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions given daily with a sequential boost to the surgical cavity. Follow-up was every 6 mos for 5 yrs and then annually. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Results: From 3-21-05 to 4-16-13, 4216 pts were randomized: 2107 PBI; 2109 WBI. 61% were postmenopausal; 81% were hormone receptor-positive; 29% intended to receive chemotherapy. Stage distribution was: DCIS, 24%; invasive pN0, 65%; invasive pN1, 10%. As of 7-31-18, median follow-up was 10.2 yrs. There were 161 IBTRs as first events: 90 PBI v 71 WBI (HR 1.22; 90%CI 0.94-1.58). Per protocol-defined margin, to declare PBI and WBI equivalent regarding IBTR risk, the 90% CI for the observed HR had to lie entirely between 0.667 and 1.5. The percent of pts IBTR-free at 10 yrs was 95.2% PBI v 95.9% WBI. A statistically significant difference in the 10-yr RFI rate favored WBI (91.9% PBI v 93.4% WBI; HR 1.32; 95%CI 1.04-1.68; p=0.02). No statistically significant differences existed between PBI and WBI in DDFI (HR 1.31; 95%CI 0.91-1.91; p=0.15), OS (HR 1.10; 95%CI 0.90-1.35; p=0.35), or DFS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.98-1.29; p=0.11). Grade 3 toxicity was 9.6% PBI v 7.1% WBI, and grade 4-5 toxicity was 0.5% v 0.3%, respectively. Discussion: PBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to WBI in controlling IBTR based on the upper limit of the hazard ratio confidence interval. However, the absolute difference in 10-yr rate of IBTR was <1% (4.8% PBI v 4.1% WBI). The risk of an RFI event was statistically significantly higher for PBI compared to WBI, but the absolute difference in 10-yr RFI rate was also small (8.1% PBI v 6.6% WBI). DDFI, OS, and DFS were not statistically different for PBI v WBI. Grade 3-5 toxicities, although low, were more common for PBI than WBI. The trial population was heterogeneous, ranging from Stage 0-2 breast cancer, and outcome by risk categories are being analyzed. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867. Citation Format: Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, Julian TB, Arthur DW, Rabinovitch RA, Kuske RR, Parda DS, Ganz PA, Scheier MF, Winter KA, Paik S, Kuerer HM, Vallow LA, Pierce LJ, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Bear HD, Germaine I, Gustafson G, Grossheim L, Petersen IA, Hudes RS, Curran, Jr. WJ, Wolmark N. Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): 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 cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-04.

Purpose: To present the most updated American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on treatment of locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer Methods: The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results: The panel summarized the most recent and relevant literature on the topic and voted on 4 clinical variants illustrating the appropriate management of locally advanced, high-risk cancer. Numerical rating and commentary reflecting the panel consensus was given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions: Aggressive local approaches including surgery followed by adjuvant XRT, beam combined with androgen deprivation therapy, and beam combined with brachytherapy have resulted in unpresented success in locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer. By combining most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate integration of available therapeutic modalities.