HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > her2group
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2012, 03:29 AM   #1
Paula O
Senior Member
 
Paula O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 954
(SABCS) Radiation: Is less best?

Ladies who also attended SABCS--can somebody please post the abstract from the presentation about shorter courses of breast radiation giving equivalant efficacy with less risk compared to the typical U.S. standard and post it in this thread? I am having a hard time finding it to post and want to review it and make sure I understood the research correctly. A radiologist reviewed the session during the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation's evening advocate mentorring session that you guys also attended and he said something like the reason the U.S. radiologists are slow to adopt this shorter standard of care is because of the money factor and radiologists not being able to bill as many weeks. I was shocked--that's plain old wrong! Can somebody please post that abstract here? It sounded like research worth examining more closely.

Thanks,

Paula
Paula O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 09:18 PM   #2
karen z
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477
Re: (SABCS) Radiation: Is less best?

Paula,
It may be abstract S4-1 that you are thinking of. Check it out. I am not sure how to post but that may very well be the talk discussed at the mentor sessions.
karen z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 07:17 AM   #3
Paula O
Senior Member
 
Paula O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 954
Re: (SABCS) Radiation: Is less best?

Thanks for finding it, Karen. Yes, that's it. In order to copy any of the abstracts to pass along here you click on the resources at www.sabcs.org, put in your user name and pass word for conference attendees (on the back of your conference badge or you can contact the SABCS folks if you tossed it), then onto the abstracts, slides, etc and away ya go.

If I was about to get radiation or in the midst of it I would copy this abstract and bring it to my radiologist and ask about it. Not that I'm an expert or anything but this looks at a 10 year followup and seems significant enough to consider---ESPECIALLY if it's the reduction in the money holding radioloogists back from adopting this standard of care like the doc at the mentorring session mentioned. The abstract says longer term studies are neccessary. Of course nobody wants to short themselves and not get enough radiation to get the job done adequately. UK ladies---how many treatment did you have? The comparison group in this study is 5 weeks versus 3 weeks, not 6 weeks like many of us got with 'boosts".

Whatdaya think of this study?

Paula

[S4-1] The UK START (Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy) Trials: 10-Year Follow-Up Results

Haviland JS, Agrawal R, Aird E, Barrett J, Barrett-Lee P, Brown J, Dewar J, Dobbs J, Hopwood P, Hoskin P, Lawton P, Magee B, Mills J, Morgan D, Owen R, Simmons S, Sydenham M, Venables K, Bliss JM, Yarnold JR, On Behalf of the START Trialists. The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom; Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, United Kingdom; Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, United Kingdom; Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, United Kingdom; Velindre Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff, United Kingdom; previously University of Bristol, now Eli Lilly & Company, United Kingdom; Formerly Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, United Kingdom; Formerly Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Nottingham City Hospital, United Kingdom; Formerly The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Formerly Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, United Kingdom; Formerly Cheltenham General Hospital, United Kingdom; The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom

Background International standard adjuvant radiotherapy regimens following primary surgery for early breast cancer have historically delivered a high total dose (50Gy) in 25 small daily doses (fractions) over 5 weeks, however randomised trials, including START, indicate that a lower total dose delivered in fewer, larger fractions (Fr) is likely to be at least as safe and effective (START Trialists' Group, Lancet 2008 & Lancet Oncol 2008). With patients remaining at risk of local relapse for many years, information on long-term outcomes is needed to provide confidence in clinical practice. Here, we report 10-year follow-up of the UK START Trials testing 13- and 15-Fr regimens in terms of local cancer control and late adverse effects.
Methods Between 1999 and 2002, 4451 women with completely excised invasive breast cancer (T1-3, N0-1, M0) were randomised after primary surgery to comparisons of 50Gy in 25Fr over 5 weeks vs 41·6Gy or 39Gy in 13Fr over 5 weeks (START A), or 50Gy in 25Fr over 5 weeks vs 40Gy in 15Fr over 3 weeks (START B). Women were eligible if aged over 18 years and did not have an immediate surgical reconstruction. Protocol-specified principal endpoints were local-regional (LR) tumour relapse and late normal tissue effects. Analysis was by intention to treat.
Findings Median follow-up in survivors is now 9.3 years in START A and 9.9 years in START B, with 139 LR relapses in START A and 95 in START B. In START A, the 10-year rate of LR relapse was 7.4% (95%CI 5.5-10.0) after 50Gy, 6.3% (95%CI 4.7-8.5) after 41·6Gy and 8.8% (95%CI 6.7-11.4) after 39Gy. In START B, the 10-year rate of LR relapse was 5.5% (95%CI 4.2-7.2) after 50Gy and 4.3% (95%CI 3.2-5.9) after 40Gy. Clinician assessments suggested lower 10-year rates of any moderate/marked late normal tissue effects after 39Gy (43.9%; 95%CI 39.3-48.7) and similar rates after 41.6Gy (49.5%; 95%CI 44.9-54.3) compared with 50Gy (50.4%; 95%CI 45.8-55.3) in START A and lower rates after 40Gy in START B (37.9%; 95%CI 34.5-41.5) compared with 50Gy (45.3%; 95%CI 41.7-49.0). From a planned meta-analysis of START A and the START pilot trial (Owen et al, Lancet Oncol 2006), the adjusted estimate of α/β value for tumour control was 3.5Gy (95% CI 1.2-5.7) and for late change in photographic breast appearance was 3.1Gy (95% CI 2.0-4.2).
Interpretation Long-term follow-up confirms that breast cancer and the surrounding dose-limiting healthy tissues respond similarly to radiotherapy fraction size and thus that appropriately-dosed hypofractionated radiotherapy is safe and effective in treatment of patients with early breast cancer. 41·6Gy in 13Fr and 40Gy in 15Fr each appear comparable to 50Gy in 25Fr in terms of local-regional tumour control and late normal tissue effects. These results support the continued use of 40Gy in 15Fr as standard of care (UK NICE Guidance 2009) for women requiring adjuvant radiotherapy for early breast cancer.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 3:15 PM

General Session 4 (3:15 PM-5:00 PM)
Paula O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 10:55 AM   #4
roz123
Senior Member
 
roz123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 199
Re: (SABCS) Radiation: Is less best?

there is a canadian developed protocol that is 4wks (20 sessions). My MIL had this done. I asked about it and for more aggressive, grade 3 tumors they do not do the shortened protocol. I believe the same is true for mammosite radiation.
__________________
diagnosed aug/11
right breast IDC 2.2 cm LVI
neoadjuvant fecx3, tax and her x3
surgery -pCR 0/2 nodes
25 rads
herceptin x18
tamox
prophy bi-msx with TE's oct 15/12
LD flap reconstruction (PM me if you want the details)
zoladex shots monthly until SOFT studies come out
roz123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 12:35 PM   #5
Ellie F
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,526
Re: (SABCS) Radiation: Is less best?

My oncology centre was part of this research which has influenced post surgery rads for a few years now in England. Even grade 3 tumours are subject to 15 fr post mastectomy. For women who are able to have a lumpectomy they have additional booster doses to the area often 19fr.
Ellie
Ellie F is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter