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
78P - Novel allogeneic cell immunotherapy for advanced cancers
Presenter: Ratnavelu Kananathan
Session: e-Poster Display Session
86P - The impact of sarcopenia on chemotherapy toxicity and survival rate among colorectal cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Presenter: Timotius Hariyanto
Session: e-Poster Display Session
87P - Predictive risk factors and online nomograms for colon cancer with synchronous liver metastasis
Presenter: Yajuan Zhu
Session: e-Poster Display Session
88P - Research of radiomics based on indeterminate lung nodules predicting prognosis of LARC patients
Presenter: Zhang Zhiyuan
Session: e-Poster Display Session
89P - Biomarker analysis of regorafenib dose escalation study (RECC study): A phase II multicenter clinical trial in Japan
Presenter: Masanobu Enomoto
Session: e-Poster Display Session
90P - The role of miR-133a-3p/SP1/IGF1R axis in the progression of colorectal cancer
Presenter: Hui Li
Session: e-Poster Display Session
91P - Prognostic biomarker of clinical outcome in locally advanced rectal cancer in Chinese patients
Presenter: Sandy Ho
Session: e-Poster Display Session
92P - Development and validation of risk and prognostic nomograms for bone metastases in advanced colorectal cancer patients
Presenter: Nan Wang
Session: e-Poster Display Session
93P - Assessment of nutritional status of colorectal cancer patients in a tertiary government hospital
Presenter: Rogelio Velasco
Session: e-Poster Display Session
94P - Prognostic influence of mean platelet volume on stage III rectal cancer patients: A tertiary cancer center study
Presenter: Pavan Jonnada
Session: e-Poster Display Session