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
434P - Pan-Canadian evidence-based, consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols/information for use at the point of care by medical oncologists? Is there a need?
Presenter: Kiran Virik
Session: e-Poster Display Session
435P - Hypnotics and risk of cancer: A meta-analysis of observational studies
Presenter: Tzu Rong Peng
Session: e-Poster Display Session
436P - Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of adolescent and young adult (AYA) melanoma: Results from an Asian perspective
Presenter: Wei Lin Goh
Session: e-Poster Display Session
437P - Long-term efficacy and toxicity outcome of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy for medullary thyroid cancer: A single institution cohort study
Presenter: Ka Man Cheung
Session: e-Poster Display Session
438P - Real-world data of relapse after adjuvant treatment (Tx) in high-risk melanoma
Presenter: Carolina Ortiz Velez
Session: e-Poster Display Session
439P - Immunohistochemical analysis of p53 and Ki-67 in glioblastoma (GBM) and their correlations with patient survival
Presenter: Paulo Luz
Session: e-Poster Display Session
440P - Blinded independent central review of oncology trials: The monitoring of readers' performance
Presenter: Hubert Beaumont
Session: e-Poster Display Session
441P - Influence of radiation therapy of patients with somatotropic pituitary adenomas depending on the age of patients
Presenter: Saodat Issaeva
Session: e-Poster Display Session
442P - Results from the registrational phase I/II ARROW trial of pralsetinib (BLU-667) in patients (pts) with advanced RET mutation-positive medullary thyroid cancer (RET+ MTC)
Presenter: Bhumsuk Keam
Session: e-Poster Display Session