Prone Vs Supine Adjuvant Radiotherapy Reduces Skin Toxicities in Patients With Breast Cancer and Large Breast Size


Treatment with adjuvant radiotherapy in the prone position lowered the odds of desquamation in patients with breast cancer and large breast size.

Patients with breast cancer and large breast size experienced less skin toxicities following adjuvant radiotherapy in the prone vs the supine position, although radiotherapy boost and conventional fractionation increased toxicities, according to findings from a phase 3 study (NCT01815476) published in JAMA Oncology.

A total of 39.6% of patients treated in the supine position experienced desquamation compared with 26.9% of those in the prone position (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.56; P = .002), the statistical significance of which was confirmed via multivariable analysis (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P <.001). Moreover, grade 3 desquamation occurred in 15.4% of patients in the supine arm vs 8.0% of patients in the prone arm (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.62-2.69; P <.001).

“To our knowledge, this study is the first multicenter, phase 3, single-blind [randomized clinical trial] that demonstrates decreased acute toxic effects for women with large breast size treated in the prone position compared with the supine position, thus validating the existing literature,” the investigators wrote.

A total of 357 patients were included in the analysis with a median age of 61.0 years. Patients had early-stage disease, were referred for adjuvant radiotherapy, and had a bran band of 40 inches or more and/or a D cup or higher. Initial treatment consisted of 2 Gy of fractionated radiotherapy per day, although hypofractionated radiotherapy—given at 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions—was allowed following protocol amendment at 3 years; this was primarily used after the decision. The study’s primary end point was development of desquamation and secondary end points included erythema, edema, and pain.

A total of 182 patients underwent radiotherapy in the supine position and the prone position was used in 175 patients. Similar characteristics were reported between groups, including age, body mass index, bra size, receipt of radiotherapy boost, hypofractionation, or treatment with chemotherapy. No difference in boost delivery among those treated with extended fractionation and hypofractionation was reported.

In the population of patients who received extended fractionation (n = 180), treatment in the supine position resulted in more toxicities than the prone position, with desquamation being reported in 51.1% and 35.2% of patients in each arm, respectively (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.72; P <.001). Moreover, grade 3 events occurred in 23.9% and 10.2% of patients in each respective arm (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.45-3.10; P <.001). Pain was also higher for the supine group (13.0%) vs the prone group (5.7%; OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.48-4.19; P <.001).Toxicities were similar for both positions among those treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 177).

Extended fractionation was associated with more toxicities compared with hypofractionation, with desquamation occurring in 43.3% and 23.2% of patients, and grade 3 events occurring in 17.2% and 6.3% of patients, respectively (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.62-6.11; P = .001). Pain also occurred in 9.4% of patients who underwent extended fractionation and 3.4% of those who underwent hypofractionation (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.06-8.31; P = .04).


Vesprini D, Davidson M, Bosnic S, et al. Effect of supine vs prone breast radiotherapy on acute toxic effects of the skin among women with large breast size. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(7):994-1000. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1479

Related Videos
The August CancerNetwork Snap Recap takes a look back at key FDA news updates, as well as expert perspectives on the chemotherapy shortage.
Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, talks about how fertility preservation can positively impact the psychosocial health in patients with breast cancer.
Daniel G. Stover, MD, describes how findings from the phase 3 NATALEE trial may support expanding the portion of patients who receive CDK 4/6 inhibitors as a treatment for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Daniel G. Stover, MD, suggests that stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes may serve as a biomarker of immune activation and can potentially help optimize therapy with microtubule-targeting agents for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, discusses how, compared with antibody-drug conjugates, chemotherapy produces low response rates and disease control in the treatment of those with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.
Hope Rugo, MD, speaks to the importance of identifying patients with aromatase inhibitor–resistant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who are undergoing treatment with capivasertib/fulvestrant who may be at a high risk of developing diabetes or hyperglycemia.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, describes the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer seen in the final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study.
An expert from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute describes which patients hormone receptor-positive,  HER2-negative breast cancer will benefit most from treatment with sacituzumab govitecan.
An expert from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute highlights the unmet needs that sacituzumab govitecan meets in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
An expert from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute highlights data that supported the FDA’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan for advanced hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Related Content