Breast Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
left sided
Brief summary
Radiotherapy has been shown to reduce breast-cancer specific mortality in patients at high risk for distant dissemination. It has also been shown to increase rates of non-breast cancer deaths and morbidity due to cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity. Although treatment planning has improved significantly through the years, recent reports still demonstrate treatment-related morbidity even with 3-dimensional planned techniques. Thus, while 3D planning represents the state of the art treatment for loco-regional radiotherapy for breast cancer, further improvement is needed to continue to decrease heart and lung exposure. The ultimate goal of the proposed research is to determine whether treatment planning using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the next generation of radiation treatment delivery systems, results in less radiation exposure to the heart and lungs than the best current RT technique in women with node positive breast cancer. This proposal will test the potential clinical value of IMRT compared to the best standard 3D plan (partially wide tangent fields, PWTF) in the treatment of breast cancer. These two treatment techniques will be studied in a Phase II randomized trial using quantitative indicators of potential cardiac and lung toxicity. The preliminary data generated from this trial will be used to ultimately justify a multi-institutional comparison of the two treatment techniques with long-term clinical cardiac and pulmonary toxicity as endpoints.
Detailed description
1. Primary Objective 1.1 To compare the extent of new myocardial perfusion defects following breast cancer radiotherapy using the best standard 3-D radiotherapy technique, partially wide tangent fields, versus the best optimized technique. 2. Secondary Objectives 2.1 To compare changes in ejection fraction and alterations in cardiac wall motion with treatment by technique 2.2 To compare changes in lung perfusion defects and pulmonary function tests (DLCO, FEV1, and FVC) by technique 2.3 To compare rates of pericarditis and pneumonitis by technique Cardiac Endpoints: Myocardial SPECT-CT perfusion defects, ejection fraction, alterations in cardiac wall motion, per SPECT-CT (adenosine stress and rest (if necessary)) scan. Pulmonary Endpoints: Lung SPECT-CT perfusion defects per SPECT-CT scan, and changes in pulmonary function tests: DLCO, FEV1, FVC Clinical Endpoints: pericarditis and pneumonitis.
Interventions
RADIATIONIMRT
All patients treated with the optimized plan will be treated to the entire target volume to 52.2 Gy in 1.74 Gy fractions, which is biologically equivalent to 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. This fractionation scheme will allow the boost of 10 Gy to be incorporated into the planning directive and to be delivered simultaneously with the treatment to the remaining target volume.
RADIATION3D
All patients treated using the best standard technique will receive 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions or 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions to the entire target volume delivering one treatment per day, five fractions per week (excluding holidays). A boost of 10 Gy to the tumor bed of an intact breast will be delivered. Patients treated to the chest wall will receive a 10Gy scar boost if mastectomy margins are positive in a patient with Stage II disease or if the patient was originally diagnosed with T3 or T4 (Stage III) disease
Sponsors
University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
Eligibility Criteria * Breast cancer diagnosis: Patients must have histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the breast requiring comprehensive loco-regional irradiation that includes treatment to the intact breast/chest wall, supraclavicular (SCV), infraclavicular nodes (ICV), and internal mammary nodes (IMN). * Patients must have pathologic T 1, 2, 3 or 4, N 1, 2, or 3 Stage II or III disease as defined by the AJCC Staging System, 6th edition. Patients who do not undergo axillary staging but are at risk for nodal involvement may also be treated. * All patients must have left-sided breast cancer. * Both men and women are eligible. * Patients must be adults (18 years of age or older) * For women of child-bearing age, effective contraception must be used. A written statement must be obtained that the patient is not pregnant. If there is any question of pregnancy at time of therapeutic RT or at time of each SPECT-CT scan, a pregnancy test will be done to confirm the patient is not pregnant. * Performance status should be 0-2 by ECOG criteria. * Patients that have received prior RT may be enrolled on the present study if the new breast lesion can be treated with no overlap of RT fields. * Patients must be aware of the neoplastic nature of her/his disease. * Patients must be informed of the investigational nature of this study and must sign an informed consent in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Michigan and federal guidelines. * Patients' blood tests should indicate they are able to tolerate radiotherapy. Tests must be done within 28 days of registration: CBC with differential and platelet count (Hemoglobin \> 8.0 g/dl; wbc \> 2000/mm3; absolute neutrophil count \> 1000/mm3; platelet count \> 75,000/mm3.
Exclusion criteria
* Patients who are pregnant or are nursing are excluded. * Pathologically node negative breast cancer unless treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. * Performance status \> 2 by ECOG criteria * Patients who are unable to lie on their back and raise their arm above their head in the treatment planning position for radiotherapy * Patients with a clinically unstable medical condition * Patients with a life-threatening disease state * History or suspicion of serious life-threatening allergic reaction to Tc-99m imaging agents. * Patients that have had breast-conservation surgery with positive margins or any patient with negative margins with a tumor positive for an extensive intraductal component. * Patients that are not able to use the ABC device.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The Number of Participants With a Significant Increase in Perfusion Defects (PD) | 1 Year | To compare the extent of new myocardial perfusion defects following breast cancer radiotherapy using the best standard 3-D radiotherapy technique, partially wide tangent fields, versus the best optimized technique. Perfusion defects (PD) were assessed by comparing normalized perfusion distributions against our institution's normal polar map databases for the left anterior descending artery (LAD) using thresholds of 2.5-SD (standard deviation) and 1.5-SD below the normal mean. On the basis of interest variability, a PD increase greater than 5% or 10% was considered significant for 2.5- and 1.5-SD thresholds, respectively. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Percent Change in Ejection Fraction (LVEF) | baseline to approx 1 year | To compare change in ejection fraction between treatment arms. |
| Number of Participants With New Lung Perfusion Defects | baseline to approx 1 year | To compare changes in lung perfusion defects by treatment arm. Perfusion defects (PD) were assessed by comparing normalized perfusion distributions against our institution's normal polar map databases for the left anterior descending artery (LAD). |
| The Number of Participants That Experience Pericarditis and Pneumonitis | approx 1 year | To compare rates of pericarditis and pneumonitis by treatment arm. Pericarditis (inflammation of the pericardium): Grade1: Asymptomatic, ECG or physical exam; changes consistent with pericarditis Grade 2: Symptomatic pericarditis Grade 3: Pericarditis with physiologic consequences Grade 4: Life-threatening Pneumonitis (inflammation of the walls of the alveoli in the lungs) Grade 1: Asymptomatic, radiographic findings only Grade 2: Symptomatic, not interfering with ADL (activities of daily living) Grade 3: Symptomatic, interfering with ADL Grade 4: Life-threatening |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| IMRT Best Delivery-optimized radiotherapy technique (IMRT)
IMRT: All patients treated with the optimized plan will be treated to the entire target volume to 52.2 Gy in 1.74 Gy fractions, which is biologically equivalent to 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. This fractionation scheme will allow the boost of 10 Gy to be incorporated into the planning directive and to be delivered simultaneously with the treatment to the remaining target volume. | 28 |
| 3DRT Best 3-dimensional standard PWTF technique
3D: All patients treated using the best standard technique will receive 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions or 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions to the entire target volume delivering one treatment per day, five fractions per week (excluding holidays). A boost of 10 Gy to the tumor bed of an intact breast will be delivered. Patients treated to the chest wall will receive a 10Gy scar boost if mastectomy margins are positive in a patient with Stage II disease or if the patient was originally diagnosed with T3 or T4 (Stage III) disease | 26 |
| Total | 54 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | IMRT | 3DRT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 47.8 years | 51.7 years | 50.6 years |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 28 Participants | 25 Participants | 53 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 27 / 28 | 23 / 26 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 1 / 28 | 0 / 26 |
Outcome results
Primary
The Number of Participants With a Significant Increase in Perfusion Defects (PD)
To compare the extent of new myocardial perfusion defects following breast cancer radiotherapy using the best standard 3-D radiotherapy technique, partially wide tangent fields, versus the best optimized technique. Perfusion defects (PD) were assessed by comparing normalized perfusion distributions against our institution's normal polar map databases for the left anterior descending artery (LAD) using thresholds of 2.5-SD (standard deviation) and 1.5-SD below the normal mean. On the basis of interest variability, a PD increase greater than 5% or 10% was considered significant for 2.5- and 1.5-SD thresholds, respectively.
Time frame: 1 Year
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMRT | The Number of Participants With a Significant Increase in Perfusion Defects (PD) | 2.5 SD and PD increase >5% | 1 participants |
| IMRT | The Number of Participants With a Significant Increase in Perfusion Defects (PD) | 1.5 SD and PD increase >10% | 3 participants |
| 3DRT | The Number of Participants With a Significant Increase in Perfusion Defects (PD) | 1.5 SD and PD increase >10% | 5 participants |
| 3DRT | The Number of Participants With a Significant Increase in Perfusion Defects (PD) | 2.5 SD and PD increase >5% | 2 participants |
Comparison: A Perfusion Defect (PD) increase of greater than 5% for a 2.5 SD threshold was considered significant.p-value: 0.6Fisher Exact
Comparison: A PD increase of greater than 10% for a 1.5 SD threshold was considered significant.p-value: 0.46Fisher Exact
Secondary
Mean Percent Change in Ejection Fraction (LVEF)
To compare change in ejection fraction between treatment arms.
Time frame: baseline to approx 1 year
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| IMRT | Mean Percent Change in Ejection Fraction (LVEF) | 3 percent change |
| 3DRT | Mean Percent Change in Ejection Fraction (LVEF) | -2 percent change |
Secondary
Number of Participants With New Lung Perfusion Defects
To compare changes in lung perfusion defects by treatment arm. Perfusion defects (PD) were assessed by comparing normalized perfusion distributions against our institution's normal polar map databases for the left anterior descending artery (LAD).
Time frame: baseline to approx 1 year
Population: One patient randomized to the IMRT arm did not receive her post-RT lung SPECT scan therefore pre- and post-radiotherapy Lung SPECT scans were available for 53 patients.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| IMRT | Number of Participants With New Lung Perfusion Defects | 3 participants |
| 3DRT | Number of Participants With New Lung Perfusion Defects | 5 participants |
Secondary
The Number of Participants That Experience Pericarditis and Pneumonitis
To compare rates of pericarditis and pneumonitis by treatment arm. Pericarditis (inflammation of the pericardium): Grade1: Asymptomatic, ECG or physical exam; changes consistent with pericarditis Grade 2: Symptomatic pericarditis Grade 3: Pericarditis with physiologic consequences Grade 4: Life-threatening Pneumonitis (inflammation of the walls of the alveoli in the lungs) Grade 1: Asymptomatic, radiographic findings only Grade 2: Symptomatic, not interfering with ADL (activities of daily living) Grade 3: Symptomatic, interfering with ADL Grade 4: Life-threatening
Time frame: approx 1 year
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMRT | The Number of Participants That Experience Pericarditis and Pneumonitis | Number of participants with pericarditis (Gr 1-4) | 0 participants |
| IMRT | The Number of Participants That Experience Pericarditis and Pneumonitis | Number of participants with pneumonitis (Gr 1-4) | 0 participants |
| 3DRT | The Number of Participants That Experience Pericarditis and Pneumonitis | Number of participants with pericarditis (Gr 1-4) | 0 participants |
| 3DRT | The Number of Participants That Experience Pericarditis and Pneumonitis | Number of participants with pneumonitis (Gr 1-4) | 0 participants |