Radiotherapy for Hormone-Positive Breast Cancer Patients Over 65

Podcast

In this interview we discuss the role of radiotherapy in treating women aged 65 and older with hormone-positive breast cancer with Dr. Ian Kunkler, professor of clinical oncology at the Edinburgh Cancer Research Center.

Ian Kunkler, FRCR

Today we are discussing the role of radiotherapy as treatment for women aged 65 and older with hormone-positive breast cancer. We are joined by Dr. Ian Kunkler, professor of clinical oncology at the Edinburgh Cancer Research Center at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Dr. Kunkler presented data from the PRIME 2 trial which tested whether women with axillary node-negative, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who are treated with hormone therapy following breast-conserving surgery, benefit from additional radiotherapy. Dr. Kunkler presented results from this trial at the annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

-Interviewed by Anna Azvolinsky, PhD

Cancer Network: Could you describe the rationale and the design of the PRIME 2 study?

Dr. Kunkler: Post-operative radiotherapy has really been the standard of care for all patients after breast-conserving surgery and hormone therapy irrespective of age and risk, but now older patients represent a significant proportion of patients presenting in the clinic. Over 50% are now over the age of 65 and in many of those patients, breast cancer has a relatively benign cause, and in some of those patients at low risk, radiotherapy may represent overtreatment. We have relatively sparse evidence of the role of radiotherapy in older patients. We have a tendency to extrapolate results from younger patients. The role of the trial was to assess the impact of radiotherapy in a low-risk, older population. Those who were eligible for the study were 65 or older, had breast-conserving surgery with clear margins, were either estrogen receptor– or progesterone receptor–positive, were receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy, and were histologically node negative. We excluded patients who were under 65 or who had a combination of grade 3 histology and vascular invasion.

Cancer Network: What did the results of this study show?

Dr. Kunkler: What we presented were the 5-year actuarial local recurrence at 5 years, which showed that in the group without radiotherapy there was a risk of recurrence of 4.1% compared to 1.3% in the irradiated group. We also carried out a subset analysis according to estrogen receptor status, which showed that the benefits of radiotherapy were even smaller in those with estrogen receptor–rich tumors. So we had a local recurrence rate in the no radiotherapy group of 3.2% compared with 0.8% in the radiotherapy group, an absolute difference that is quite modest, of 2.4%. What we also observed was that in the group of low estrogen-receptor status, category 2 to 6, there was a relatively high number of recurrences in the no-radiotherapy group (11% in all, representing 20% of all events in the trial), suggesting that that is a group with low estrogen receptor from which radiotherapy should not be omitted.

Cancer Network: In your opinion, what is the impact to clinical practice as a result of this study?

Dr. Kunkler: I think that what it suggests is that there is a low-risk group of patients for which now the omission of radiotherapy is an option. I think it will be up to clinicians to decide whether the absolute benefits are sufficient to justify the continuation of radiotherapy in that subgroup.

Cancer Network: Are there differences in the use of radiotherapy in the United Kingdom compared with the United States?

Dr. Kunkler: Broadly, practice is the same in the United States and in the United Kingdom, and at the moment there is no specific subgroup from which radiotherapy has been systematically omitted. This might be a study that acts as the tipping point to change practice.

Cancer Network: Are there follow-up studies now that are ongoing or being planned that will further address the role of radiotherapy in treating women with any type of breast cancer?

Dr. Kunkler: Clearly, one of the important things is to see whether we can develop a molecular signature to identify patients who are genuinely low risk, and a trial like the PRIME trial may be one in which such a molecular signature could be tested.

Cancer Network: Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Kunkler.

Dr. Kunkler: A pleasure.

Newsletter

Stay up to date on recent advances in the multidisciplinary approach to cancer.

Recent Videos
“The trial will be successful, or [we’ll] declare it a success if we see at least 3 of 24 responses overall,” stated Ravi, MD, BChir, MRCP, on the phase 2 LASER trial in RCC.
Success with the 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy would be transformative for the clear cell renal cell carcinoma treatment landscape.
An ongoing phase 1 trial seeks to prove XmAb819 as an effective treatment and ENPP3 as a plausible target in patients with relapsed or refractory RCC.
“The therapy is designed to prevent both CAR T-cell inactivation and to restore the anti-tumor immunity of the white blood cells that have gotten through the tumor,” said Marasco, MD, PhD.
Ongoing studies aim to combine base immunotherapy regimens with novel agents to potentially improve outcomes among patients with kidney cancer.
Investigators have found a way to reduce liver and biliary toxicity when targeting the molecule CAIX in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Neoantigen-targeting vaccines resulted in an absence of recurrence in 9 patients with high-risk kidney cancer, according to David A. Braun, MD, PhD.
The Kidney Cancer Research Consortium may allow collaborators to form more mechanistic and scientifically driven efforts in the field.
Wayne A. Marasco, MD, PhD, stated that by targeting 2 molecules instead of 1, higher levels of tumor cell killing can be achieved in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Leading experts in the breast cancer field highlight the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and other treatment modalities.
Related Content