Six published randomized trials[
1-6] and one meta-analysis[
7] of published and unpublished
trials have demonstrated that
breast-conserving therapy (breast-conserving
surgery plus breast irradiation)
is equivalent to mastectomy in
terms of survival. As a result, breastconserving
therapy is the option preferred
by many women for the
treatment of early-stage breast cancer.[
8] Breast irradiation following
breast-conserving surgery is an integral
part of breast-conserving therapy.
There are seven other published
randomized trials demonstrating that
breast irradiation substantially reduces
the rate of local recurrence and
prevents the need for subsequent mastectomy.[
9-15] A recent meta-analysis
also supports the conclusion that breast
cancer patients who receive breast irradiation
have improved survival.[16]
Despite this demonstrated effectiveness,
up to 30% of patients treated
with breast-conserving surgery may
not receive radiation therapy.[17,18]
The reasons for this are multifactorial,
but they are primarily related to
the inconvenience, side effects, and
cost of treatment.[19,20] While breast
irradiation is generally well tolerated,
it is an inconvenient treatment that
requires daily visits for up to 6 or 7
weeks. Common early toxicities include
fatigue, breast pain, edema, skin
erythema, and irritation, all of which
can have a significant impact on quality
of life.[21] The difficulties encountered
in delivering and receiving
radiation treatment are believed to account
for the poor utilization of breastconserving
therapy in some regions
of North America.
Modified Radiation Strategies
In an effort to improve convenience
and quality of life for patients who
receive breast irradiation, investigators
have evaluated shorter or accelerated
radiation therapy schedules.
A Canadian trial compared accelerated
whole-breast irradiation given in
3 weeks to a more conventional course
of whole-breast irradiation given in
5 weeks.[22] With a median followup
of approximately 6 years, the rates
of local recurrence and adverse cosmetic
outcome as a measure of late
morbidity were equivalent between the
two approaches. A similar randomized
trial in the United Kingdom evaluating
less frequent radiation treatments demonstrated
similar findings.[23]
As a result, accelerated wholebreast
irradiation is now an option for
women, to improve convenience and
decrease costs associated with breast
irradiation following breast-conserving
surgery. While there remains some
concern about potentially increased
long-term morbidity associated with
accelerated therapy, the results obtained
so far suggest that this outcome
is unlikely to be substantially
worse than that seen with conventional
treatment. Accelerated wholebreast
irradiation is now widely used
in Canada and the United Kingdom.
The article by Arthur et al in this
journal provides a thorough summary
of the next generation of accelerated
radiation therapy approaches following
breast-conserving surgery. Radiation
morbidity is directly related to
the volume of tissue irradiated.[24]
By delivering only partial-breast irradiation,
larger doses of radiation can
be delivered in an even shorter period
of time (1 to 5 days) with the expectation
that there will be limited morbidity.
A number of approaches have
been developed, including interstitial
brachytherapy, the MammoSite device,
three-dimensional conformal
therapy, and intraoperative treatment.
Some of these approaches, especially
interstitial brachytherapy, have undergone
extensive phase II testing and
are now being evaluated in phase III
randomized trials.
Importance of Clinical Trials
As indicated by the authors, it is
likely that with careful selection of
patients and the use of appropriate
quality assurance measures, a number
of these approaches may prove to
be equally effective to current wholebreast
irradiation. However, it is important
that these approaches be
carefully evaluated. Previous advances
in breast-conserving treatment have
been based on carefully performed
phase II and extensive phase III testing.
As a result, our current approach
to breast-conserving therapy as compared
to more radical surgery, has
been shown to result in equivalent
outcomes for women for up to 20
years following treatment.[9,25]
It is of some interest that the only
randomized trial of partial-breast
irradiation performed more than
10 years ago demonstrated decreased
local control and worse cosmetic outcome
as compared to whole-breast
irradiation.[26] This has been attributed
to suboptimal selection of patients
and inadequate techniques
for tumor localization. In the next
decade, it will be important to build
on our previous successes through
carefully performed research studies.
Advances in Technology
Other recent advances in radiation
therapy for breast cancer have been
the application of technology to adequately
localize the tumor cavity, identify
critical structures, and provide a
more homogeneous dose. These advances
have included the use of computed
tomography (CT) planning and
intensity-modulated radiation therapy
(IMRT). IMRT utilizes modern technology
to deliver a number of radiation
fields and to vary the intensity of these
fields. As Arthur and colleagues point
out in their review, numerous studies
have now demonstrated that IMRT results
in improved homogeneity of the
dose to the breast and decreased exposure
to the heart and lungs.
This application may be of particular
relevance for locoregional radiation
where the target extends beyond
the breast and chest wall to include
the regional nodes at risk, which
would normally increase the risk of
additional radiation to the lungs and
heart. IMRT compared to conventional
techniques may be associated with
increased low-dose radiation exposure
to tissues beyond the breast-eg, thyroid
and contralateral breast-so,
again, it is imperative that such approaches
be formally evaluated in prospective
phase III trials.
Conclusions
The newer approaches to radiation
therapy for breast cancer are exciting
and hold much promise. As we move
forward, we must not forget that advances
in the local treatment of breast
cancer have come through rigorous
evaluation resulting in high levels of
local control that can be consistently
achieved in many different institutions.
New treatment approaches are attractive
from the perspectives of applied
technology, reduction in morbidity,
improvement in patient convenience,
and decreased costs. However, these
approaches need to meet the high
standards of established radiation therapy
techniques through equally rigorous
evaluation, to ensure that these
potential advantages do not come at
the expense of local control or unacceptable
side effects.
