Abstract 18P
Background
Compared to sequential conventional fractionation schedule, Simultaneous integrated Boost provides increased dose homogeneity, with less unintended excessive dose outside the boost area; in combination with a higher dose per fraction to the tumour bed, resulting in a shorter overall treatment time spanning over 5 1⁄2 weeks. We compared cosmesis using the Harvard cosmesis scale and dosimetry of SIB IMRT versus sequential electron boost in breast cancer patients.
Methods
Patients in our Institute who have undergone breast-conserving surgery and received adjuvant chemotherapy, who are referred for adjuvant radiotherapy. The study period spanned from 1st May 2016 to 31st March 2018.
Results
The baseline Harvard score for grading breast cosmesis in both the arms was excellent (84% in SIB and 81% in SEB) or good(16% in SIB and 19% in SEB). None of the patients in either arm had fair or poor cosmesis. Assessment of cosmesis at the end of radiation therapy showed a dip from excellent to good and fair in both the arms ( 34% versus 9% with excellent cosmesis, 53% versus 72% with good cosmesis and 13% versus 19% with poor cosmesis in SIB versus SEB arms) but the patients in the SEB arm had comparatively much lower cosmetic score. However, this difference was not statistically significant(p=0.045). Overall cosmesis at the end of 3 months was better in SIB arm compared to that of the SEB arm and was statistically significant (93% with excellent and good cosmesis in SIB vs 65% in SEB p<0.001). At 6 months of follow-up in SIB arm, there was an improvement of the cosmesis with a majority of the patients showing excellent(59%) and good (34%) cosmetic score.
Conclusions
In a selected cohort of patients who have undergone breast conservation surgery, a simultaneous integrated boost along with WBI is considered equivalent radiobiological to sequential electron boost after WBI. This study reports better cosmetic outcomes and favourable toxicity profile with SIB compared to SEB over short-term follow-up which is statistically significant.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
313P - Diagnostic value of micro RNA (miRNA) in renal cell cancer: A meta-analysis and systemic review
Presenter: Jestoni Aranilla
Session: e-Poster Display Session
314P - Comprehensive microbial signatures and genomic profiling in tumour samples using next generation sequencing
Presenter: Mei Qi Yee
Session: e-Poster Display Session
315P - High-penetrance breast and/or ovarian cancer susceptibility genes in Filipinos
Presenter: Frances Victoria Que
Session: e-Poster Display Session
316P - Implementation of Vela Analytics to accelerate comprehensive interpretation and reporting of next-generation sequencing-based oncology testing in clinical diagnostic laboratories
Presenter: Yingnan Yu
Session: e-Poster Display Session
317P - Genomic profiling and molecular pathology of Chinese glioma patients
Presenter: yuanli Zhao
Session: e-Poster Display Session
320P - Psychometric interplay of the perception of the real-life impact of COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of patients with newly diagnosed malignancies
Presenter: Kelvin Bao
Session: e-Poster Display Session
321P - Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on adherence to treatment schedule among cancer patients
Presenter: Krishnamani Kalpathi
Session: e-Poster Display Session
322P - Challenged faced by cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic
Presenter: mithra Krishnamani
Session: e-Poster Display Session
323P - Oncology care in the Republic of Kazakhstan during COVID-19
Presenter: Dilyara Kaidarova
Session: e-Poster Display Session
324P - COVID era: Perception of oncologists from a developing nation
Presenter: Rakesh Roy
Session: e-Poster Display Session