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
35P - Pathological response to weekly nabpaclitaxel and carboplatin followed by anthracycline regimen in triple negative breast cancer
Presenter: Goteti Sharat Chandra
Session: e-Poster Display Session
36P - Survival in patients with contralateral breast cancer
Presenter: Sergey Kamishov
Session: e-Poster Display Session
37P - Correlation between haematological toxicity with quality of life in breast cancer patients after first-cycle chemotherapy
Presenter: felix Wijovi
Session: e-Poster Display Session
38P - Evaluation of the prognostic value of innate immunity-related biomarkers in early breast cancer (BC)
Presenter: Veronica Martini
Session: e-Poster Display Session
39P - CSF-1R inhibitor (C019199) enhances antitumor effect in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy on murine breast cancer models
Presenter: Jiani Zheng
Session: e-Poster Display Session
40P - Molecular subtypes and imaging phenotypes of breast cancer: MRI
Presenter: Yulduz Khatamovna
Session: e-Poster Display Session
41P - Mir-223 overexpression is associated with increased expression of EGFR and worse prognosis in Indonesian TNBC patients
Presenter: Ibnu Purwanto
Session: e-Poster Display Session
42P - Impact of germline mutations on breast cancer prognosis in Kazakh population
Presenter: Dilyara Kaidarova
Session: e-Poster Display Session
50P - Efficacy and safety analysis of pyrotinib in lapatinib resistant HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A retrospective study
Presenter: Yijia Hua
Session: e-Poster Display Session
51P - Real world outcomes in elderly women with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer
Presenter: Nicole Evans
Session: e-Poster Display Session