Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster session 02

198P - Cosmesis (CA), late effects (LE) and Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) in high risk breast cancer (BC) treated with hypo-fractionated radiotherapy (RT): Real world outcome from a developing country

Date

10 Sep 2022

Session

Poster session 02

Topics

Tumour Site

Breast Cancer

Presenters

Sushma Agrawal

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2022) 33 (suppl_7): S55-S84. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1038

Authors

S. Agrawal1, C. Mishra1, P. Lal2, G. Chand3, G. Agarwal4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Radiation Oncology Department, SGPGIMS - Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, 226014 - Lucknow/IN
  • 2 Department Of Radiotherapy,, Sgpgi, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, 226014 - Lucknow/IN
  • 3 Endocrine & Breast Surgery Department, SGPGIMS - Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, 226014 - Lucknow/IN
  • 4 Endocrine And Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, 226014 - Lucknow/IN

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 198P

Background

There is dearth of literature on CA, LE in high-risk BC. Since breast conservation is now feasible even in women with high-risk BC, we investigated the CE and LE in this cohort. Table: 198P

Variables Arm edema P-value (HR) Brachial plexopathy p-value, HR Shoulder stiffness P-value, HR Global cosmesis P-value, HR
Premenopausal (R) (n=26) Postmenopausal, (n=56) 0.4 (0.2) 0.3 (2) 0.1 (3) 0.3 (0.5)
T <3cm (R) (n=59) T>3cm, (n=23) 0.09 (7.2) 0.2 (0.3) 0.6 (1.3) 0.3(2.3)
Resected volume <100 cc (R) (n=32) >100cc, (n=41) 0.6(0.5) 0.3(2) 0.8 (0.8) 0.005(4.6)
NACT (yes),(n=25) NACT (n=57) 0.3(7.9) 0.9 (0) 0.4 (0.5) 0.009(6.5)
Breast Volume receiving 107% dose <10cc (n=67) >10cc (n=15) 0.9 (0) 0.03(6.1) 0.07(4) 0.1(5)
Breast Volume receiving 100% dose <120cc (n =43) >120 cc (n =39) 0.3(4.9) 0.2(2.7) 0.8 (1) 0.6(5)
SCF RT (yes) (n=35) SCF RT(No) (n=47) 0.3(0.28) 0.6 (1.4)) 0.4 (0.5) 0.5(0.7)

Methods

Women with BC who underwent BCS during the period 2013-2017 were selected for this study. CA and LE were evaluated physically by 2 physicians (using EORTC and RTOG grading, and PROM was evaluated with BR23 questionaire. Patient, tumour and treatment related factors were corelated with CA, LE using cox-proportional hazards model (spss v.20).

Results

Out of 186 women who underwent BCS, only 82 could attend clinic (majority were not contactable on phone and few could not come due to pandemic). At a median follow-up of 5 years, 56% patients had adverse global cosmesis due to higher incidence of high risk features ( tumour size more than 3cm [37%, HR 2.3], node positive [50%], chemotherapy (CT) (100%, HR 6.5), large resection volumes (HR 4.6), large breast volume [50%, HR 1], supraclavicular RT[43%, HR 0.7], or tumor boost (100%). The dosimetric factors significant for adverse cosmesis were volume of breast receiving 107% dose (more than 10cc, HR 5) and volume of breast receiving 100% dose (more than 120cc, HR 5). Arm edema: 9%, shoulder stiffness:20%, brachial plexopathy: 14% and factors found significant were tumour size (HR 9), volume of breast receiving 107% (HR 6), and co-morbidity (HR 3). Based on BR23 questionaire, 69% patients had poor body image, 35% breast pain, and 47% women were sexually active. Patients reported more LE than physicians (15% vs 7.4 % arm edema, 35% vs 10% brachial plexopathy).

Conclusions

BC with high-risk features have high risk of adverse cosmesis which is influenced by large resection volume, CT and residual dose inhomogeneity. LE was also influenced by large resection volume and residual dose inhomogeneity. Two-third were dissatisfied with their body image and half were sexually inactive.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

SGPGI, Ethics Committee.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.