Published June 1, 2012 | Version v1
Journal article

Role of Postmastectomy Radiation After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage II-III Breast Cancer

  • 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA (United States)
  • 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Diego, CA (United States)
  • 3. Athena Breast Health Network, Program Management Office, San Francisco, CA (United States)
  • 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
  • 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA (United States)
  • 6. Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA (United States)
  • 7. Department of Surgery, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA (United States)

Description

Purpose: To identify a cohort of women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy for whom postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) may be omitted according to the projected risk of local-regional failure (LRF). Methods and Materials: Seven breast cancer physicians from University of California cancer centers created 14 hypothetical clinical case scenarios, identified, reviewed, and abstracted the available literature (MEDLINE and Cochrane databases), and formulated evidence tables with endpoints of LRF, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Using the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria methodology, appropriateness ratings for postmastectomy radiation were assigned for each scenario. Finally, an overall summary risk assessment table was developed. Results: Of 24 sources identified, 23 were retrospective studies from single institutions. Consensus on the appropriateness rating, defined as 80% agreement in a category, was achieved for 86% of the cases. Distinct LRF risk categories emerged. Clinical stage II (T1-2N0-1) patients, aged >40 years, estrogen receptor-positive subtype, with pathologic complete response or 0-3 positive nodes without lymphovascular invasion or extracapsular extension, were identified as having ≤10% risk of LRF without radiation. Limited data support stage IIIA patients with pathologic complete response as being low risk. Conclusions: In the absence of randomized trial results, existing data can be used to guide the use of PMRT in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. Using available studies to inform appropriateness ratings for clinical scenarios, we found a high concordance of treatment recommendations for PMRT and were able to identify a cohort of women with a low risk of LRF without radiation. These low-risk patients will form the basis for future planned studies within University of California Athena Breast Health Network.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.068

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.068;
PII
S0360-3016(12)00141-1;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Journal Volume
83
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
p. 494-503
ISSN
0360-3016
CODEN
IOBPD3

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2012 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.