Jan Haussmann

Purpose/objective: Adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy and systemic therapy are part of the current evidence-based treatment protocols for early breast cancer, after breast-conserving surgery. Numerous randomized trials have investigated the therapeutic effects of partial breast irradiation (PBI) compared to whole breast irradiation (WBI), limiting the treated breast tissue. These trials were designed to achieve equal control of the disease with possible reduction in adverse events, improvements in cosmesis and quality of life (QoL). In this meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the differences between PBI and WBI in side effects and QoL. Material/methods: We performed a systematic literature review searching for randomized trials comparing WBI and PBI in early-stage breast cancer with publication dates after 2009. The meta-analysis was performed using the published event rates and the effect-sizes for available acute and late adverse events. Additionally, we evaluated cosmetic outcomes as well as general and breast-specific QoL using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires. Results: Sixteen studies were identified (n = 19,085 patients). PBI was associated with a lower prevalence in any grade 1 + acute toxicity and grade 2 + skin toxicity (OR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.09–0.18; p < 0.001); (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07–0.41; p < 0.001). There was neither a significant difference in late adverse events between the two treatments, nor in any unfavorable cosmetic outcomes, rated by either medical professionals or patients. PBI-technique using EBRT with twice-daily fractionation schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients (n = 3215; OR = 2.08; 95% CI 1.22–3.54; p = 0.007) compared to WBI. Maximum once-daily EBRT schedules (n = 2071; OR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.45–0.79; p < 0.001) and IORT (p = 0.042) resulted in better cosmetic results grade by medical professionals. Functional- and symptom-based QoL in the C30-scale was not different between PBI and WBI. Breast-specific QoL was superior after PBI in the subdomains of “systemic therapy side effects” as well as “breast-” and “arm symptoms”. Conclusion: The analysis of multiple randomized trials demonstrate a superiority of PBI in acute toxicity as well breast-specific quality of life, when compared with WBI. Overall, late toxicities and cosmetic results were similar. PBI-technique with a fractionation of twice-daily schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients.

Background: Multiple randomized trials have established adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) and whole breast irradiation (WBI) as the standard approach after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in early-stage breast cancer. The omission of WBI has been studied in multiple trials and resulted in reduced local control with maintained survival rates and has therefore been adapted as a treatment option in selected patients in several guidelines. Omitting ET instead of WBI might also be a valuable option as both treatments have distinctly different side effect profiles. However, the clinical outcomes of BCS + ET vs. BCS + WBI have not been formally analyzed. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review searching for randomized trials comparing BCS + ET vs. BCS + WBI in low-risk breast cancer patients with publication dates after 2000. We excluded trials using any form of chemotherapy, regional nodal radiation and mastectomy. The meta-analysis was performed using a two-step process. First, we extracted all available published event rates and the effect sizes for overall and breast-cancer-specific survival (OS, BCSS), local (LR) and regional recurrence, disease-free survival, distant metastases-free interval, contralateral breast cancer, second cancer other than breast cancer and mastectomy-free interval as investigated endpoints and compared them in a network meta-analysis. Second, the published individual patient data from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) publications were used to allow a comparison of OS and BCSS. Results: We identified three studies, including a direct comparison of BCS + ET vs. BCS + WBI (n = 1059) and nine studies randomizing overall 7207 patients additionally to BCS only and BCS + WBI + ET resulting in a four-arm comparison. In the network analysis, LR was significantly lower in the BCS + WBI group in comparison with the BCS + ET group (HR = 0.62; CI-95%: 0.42–0.92; p = 0.019). We did not find any differences in OS (HR = 0.93; CI-95%: 0.53–1.62; p = 0.785) and BCSS (OR = 1.04; CI-95%: 0.45–2.41; p = 0.928). Further, we found a lower distant metastasis-free interval, a higher rate of contralateral breast cancer and a reduced mastectomy-free interval in the BCS + WBI-arm. Using the EBCTCG data, OS and BCSS were not significantly different between BCS + ET and BCS + WBI after 10 years (OS: OR = 0.85; CI-95%: 0.59–1.22; p = 0.369) (BCSS: OR = 0.72; CI-95%: 0.38–1.36; p = 0.305). Conclusion: Evidence from direct and indirect comparison suggests that BCS + WBI might be an equivalent de-escalation strategy to BCS + ET in low-risk breast cancer. Adverse events and quality of life measures have to be further compared between these approaches.

We aimed to evaluate the standard of care of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in elderly female patients (≥65 years) treated outside of clinical trials and to identify potential factors related to the omission of RT and the interaction with endocrine therapy (ET). All women treated with BCS at two major breast centers between 1998 and 2014 were evaluated. Data were provided by the Tumor Registry Munich. Survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan–Meier method. Prognostic factors were identified using multivariate Cox regression analysis. The median follow-up was 88.4 months. Adjuvant RT was performed in 82% (2599/3171) of patients. Irradiated patients were younger (70.9 vs. 76.5 years, p < 0.001) and were more likely to receive additional chemotherapy (p < 0.001) and ET (p = 0.014). Non-irradiated patients more often had non-invasive DCIS tumors (pTis: 20.3% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) and did not undergo axillary surgery (no axillary surgery: 50.5% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT was associated with improved locoregional tumor control after BCS in invasive tumors (10-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS): 94.0% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001, 10-year lymph node recurrence-free survival (LNRFS): 98.1% vs. 93.1%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed significant benefits for local control with postoperative RT. Furthermore, RT led to increased locoregional control even in patients who received ET (10-year LRFS 94.8% with ET + RT vs. 78.1% with ET alone, p < 0.001 and 10-year LNRFS: 98.2% vs. 95.0%, p = 0.003). Similarly, RT alone had significantly better locoregional control rates compared to ET alone (10-year LRFS 92.6% with RT alone vs. 78.1% with ET alone, p < 0.001 and 10-year LNRFS: 98.0% vs. 95.0%, p = 0.014). The present work confirms the efficacy of postoperative RT for breast carcinoma in elderly patients (≥65 years) treated in a modern clinical setting outside of clinical trials, even in patients who receive ET.

We present a case of mild radiation recall dermatitis triggered by cisplatin chemotherapy given simultaneously to re-irradiation. The dermatitis area correlated to skin exposure of the previous radiation therapy, characterizing the reaction clearly as a recall. Cisplatin has not yet been recognized as a potential trigger for recall reactions. Although it was part of several reported multidrug trigger combinations, all review works referred to cisplatin as not suspicious, suggesting the combination partner as the effector. We performed a focused systematic literature review aiming to re-evaluate the real role of cisplatin as a (co-)triggering factor. In total, 30 reported cases were found, 90% triggered by multidrug combinations. The latter tended to cause more severe symptoms. Besides findings supporting the 20 Gy-threshold theory, no correlation between radiation dose and severity or prevalence was found. Recognition of cisplatin as a trigger of the recall phenomenon and its supportive management may prevent unnecessary cessation of systemic chemotherapy. Systematic reporting of recall events as a secondary endpoint of prospective clinical trials applying radiation therapy could support understanding the recall phenomenon.

Background: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (naRT) in addition to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (naCT) has been used for locally advanced, inoperable breast cancer or to allow breast conserving surgery (BCS). Retrospective analyses suggest that naRT + naCT might result in an improvement in pathological complete response (pCR rate and disease-free survival). pCR is a surrogate parameter for improved event-free and overall survival (OS) and allows for the adaption of the post-neoadjuvant therapy regimens. However, it is not clear whether pCR achieved with the addition of naRT has the same prognostic value. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective re-analysis of 356 patients (cT1-cT4/cN0-N+) treated with naRT and naCT with a long-term follow-up. Patients underwent naRT on the breast and regional lymph nodes combined with a boost to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy with different agents was given either sequentially or concomitantly to naRT. We used the Cox proportional hazard regression model to estimate the effect of pCR in our cohort in different subgroups as well as chemotherapy protocols. Clinical response markers correlating with OS were also analyzed. Results: For patients with median follow-ups of 20 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, OS rates were 69.7%, 60.6%, 53.1%, and 45.1%, respectively. pCR was achieved in 31.1% of patients and associated with a significant improvement in OS (HR = 0.58; CI-95%: 0.41–0.80; p = 0.001). The prognostic impact of pCR was evident across breast cancer subtypes and chemotherapy regimens. Multivariate analysis showed that age, clinical tumor and nodal stage, chemotherapy, and pCR were prognostic for OS. Conclusion: NaCT and naRT prior to surgical resection achieve good long-term survival in high-risk breast cancer. pCR after naRT maintains its prognostic value in breast cancer subtypes and across different subgroups. pCR driven by naRT and naCT independently influences long-term survival.

Background/Aims: Due to its favorable dose distribution and targeting of the region at highest risk of recurrence due to direct visualization of tumor bed, intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) is used as part of a breast-conserving treatment approach. The aim of this study was to analyze tumor control and survival, as well as the toxicity profile, and cosmetic outcomes in patients irradiated with an IOERT boost for breast cancer. Materials and Methods: 139 Patients treated at our institution between January 2010 and January 2015 with a single boost dose of 10 Gy to the tumor bed during breast-conserving surgery followed by whole-breast irradiation were retrospectively analyzed. Results: 139 patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 54 years (range 28–83 years). The preferred surgical strategy was segmental resection with sentinel lymphonodectomy (66.5%) or axillary dissection (23.1%). Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy, the vast majority received 5 × 1.8 Gy to 50.4 Gy. At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, recurrence-free and overall survival were 95.5% and 94.9%, respectively. No patient developed an in-field recurrence. Seven patients (5.0%) died during the follow-up period, including two patients due to disease recurrence (non-in-field). High-grade (CTCAE > 2) perioperative adverse events attributable to IOERT included wound healing disorder (N = 1) and hematoma (N = 1). High-grade late adverse events (LENT-SOMA grade III) were reported only in one patient with fat necrosis. Low-grade late adverse events (LENT-SOMA grade I-II) included pain (18.0%), edema (10.5%), fibrosis (21%), telangiectasia (4.5%) and pigmentation change (23.0%). The mean breast retraction assessment score was 1.66 (0–6). Both patients and specialists rated the cosmetic result “excellent/good” in 84.8% and 87.9%, respectively. Conclusion: Our study reports favorable data on the cosmetic outcome as well as the acute and early long-term tolerability for patients treated with an IOERT boost. Our oncologic control rates are comparable to the previous literature. However, prospective investigations on the role of IOERT in comparison to other boost procedures would be desirable.

Background: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been the main tool to contain the pandemic. The rush development of the 3 vaccines and their expedited approval have led to inoculation of millions of patients around the world, leading to a containment of the disease. Despite continuous viral mutations and the identification of weaker variants, the severity of the infections has been mild, with many patients being either asymptomatic or recovering at home. Currently the focus has shifted from the host of organ damage related to the infection to potential side effects of the vaccine. Myocarditis has been reported as one of the potential side effects from the mRNA vaccine, affecting young healthy individuals. Up to September 30, 2021, 1.243 cases of myocarditis after vaccination with BNT162b2 Comirnaty© were registered in young adults by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute in Germany alone. The exact pathophysiology and the risk factors for myocarditis following vaccination remain unclear. We present a case series of eight patients with cardiac symptom shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination (BNT162b6, Biontech, Comirnaty© or mRNA-1237 Moderna, Spikevax©). Patients and methods: Eight patients between 13 and 56 years of age, vaccinated with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccine between January and August 2021 developed cardiac side effects shortly after either their first or second dose of the vaccine. Clinical data were retrieved from the clinical information system and analyzed. To support diagnosis of myocarditis or pericarditis, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed shortly after the onset of symptoms, with further investigations in severe cases. Symptoms were defined as dyspnea, chest pain and cardiac arrhythmia as determined by electrocardiography. Results: Eight patients (5 males and 3 females) developed cardiac symptoms compatible with myocarditis, according to the CDC criteria, shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Three patients (2 males, 1 female) required hospitalization due to severe chest pain and elevated troponin levels. All patients recovered fully within 7 days from the symptom onset. Conclusions: Our data suggest that cardiac adverse events such as myocarditis or pericarditis shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination are rare but possible and occur particularly in male patients.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy enables close monitoring of tumor response in patients with breast cancer. Being able to assess tumor response during treatment provides an opportunity to evaluate new therapeutic strategies. Thus, for triple-negative breast tumors, it was demonstrated that additional immunotherapy could improve prognosis compared with chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, adjuvant therapy can be escalated or de-escalated correspondingly. The CREATE-X trial randomly assigned HER2-negative patients with residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy to either observation or capecitabine. In HER2-negative patients with positive BRCA testing, the OlympiA study randomly assigned patients to either observation or olaparib. HER2-positive patients without pathologic remission were randomly assigned to trastuzumab or trastuzumab–emtansine within the KATHERINE study. These studies were all able to show an improvement in oncologic outcome associated with the escalation of therapy in patients presenting with residual tumor after neoadjuvant treatment. On the other hand, this individualization of therapy may also offer the possibility to de-escalate treatment, and thereby reduce morbidity. Among WSG-ADAPT HER2+/HR-, HER2-positive patients achieved comparable results without chemotherapy after complete remission following neoadjuvant treatment. In summary, the concept of post-neoadjuvant therapy constitutes a great opportunity for individualized cancer treatment, potentially improving outcome. In this review, the most important trials of post-neoadjuvant therapy are compiled and discussed.

Aim: Plantar enthesophyte is a common degenerative disorder. Surgical and medical treatment options are associated with either poor outcome or high percentage of relapse. Observations have indicated a beneficial effect of radiation therapy. We therefore wanted to evaluate pain reduction using orthovolt or cobalt-based radiation treatment for painful plantar enthesophyte and determine long-term response as well as prognostic parameters in this condition.Methods: We identified a total of 102 consecutive patients treated for a total of 117 symptomatic heel spurs. 59 patients were treated with cobalt radiation, 31 patients with orthovolt therapy and 12 patients with both radiation systems. Primary outcome measure was pain reduction being scored using the modified Rowe Score prior therapy, at the end of each treatment series as well as after 6 weeks. Secondary outcome measure was long-term outcome, evaluated in patients with a follow-up period of longer than 3 years.Results: Before radiation therapy, 61 patients (60.4%) had a score of 0, significant strong pain. At the time of completion of radiation treatment, 3 patients (2.7%) were pain-free (score of 30), whereas 8 patients (7.9%) had still severe pain (score 0). 6 weeks after radiation therapy, 33 patients (32.7%) were pain-free and 8 patients (7.9%) had severe pain (score 0), while at the time data of collection, 74 patients (73%) were free of pain and 1 patient (1%) had strong pain (score 0). Duration of pain before the start of radiation treatment was a significant prognostic factor (p = 0.012) for response to treatment.Conclusion: Radiotherapy of painful plantar enthesophyte is a highly effective therapy with little side effects providing long-term therapeutic response. The only significant prognostic parameter for response to treatment is the duration of pre-radiation therapy pain. Early integration of radiation therapy in the treatment seems to result in superior pain reduction.