Advertisement

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 195, Issue 7, pp 615–628 | Cite as

Long-term cosmetic outcome after preoperative radio-/chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer patients

  • Christiane Matuschek
  • Carolin Nestle-Kraemling
  • Jan Haussmann
  • Edwin BölkeEmail author
  • Sylvia Wollandt
  • Vanessa Speer
  • Freddy Joel Djiepmo Njanang
  • Bálint Tamaskovics
  • Peter Arne Gerber
  • Klaus Orth
  • Eugen Ruckhaeberle
  • Tanja Fehm
  • Stefanie Corradini
  • Guido Lammering
  • Svjetlana Mohrmann
  • Werner Audretsch
  • Stephan Roth
  • Kai Kammers
  • Wilfried Budach
Original Article
  • 195 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy (PRT/PCRT) represent an increasingly used clinical strategy in different tumor sites. We have previously reported on a PRT/PRCT protocol in patients with locally advanced non-inflammatory breast cancer (LABC) with promising clinical results. However, concerns regarding a possible unfavorable influence on cosmesis still exist. Thus, the aim of the current study was to examine long-term cosmetic outcome in our series of LABC patients treated with PRT/PCRT followed by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy (ME).

Patients and methods

Of the 315 patients treated with PRT/PCRT in the years 1991 to 1999, 203 were still alive at long-term follow-up of mean 17.7 years (range 14–21). Thirty-seven patients were lost to follow-up and 58 patients refused to be contacted, which resulted in 107 patients (64 patients after BCS and 43 after mastectomy) being available and willing to undergo further cosmetic assessment. One patient had a complete response after PRT/PCRT and refused surgery. PRT/PCRT consisted of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with 50 Gy (5 × 2 Gy/week) to the breast and the supra-/infraclavicular lymph nodes combined with a consecutive electron boost or (in case of BCS) a 10-Gy interstitial brachytherapy boost with Ir-192 prior to EBRT. Overall, chemotherapy was administered either prior to RT or concomitantly in the majority of patients. BCS and mastectomy were performed with and without reconstruction. The cosmetic outcome was assessed by patient questionnaire, panel evaluation, and breast retraction assessment (BRA) score.

Results

Eighty percent of all BCS patients rated their overall cosmetic result as “excellent” or “good” as compared to 55.8% after mastectomy. Patient and panel ratings on cosmetic outcomes were similar between the two groups. No grade III or IV fibrosis were detected in any of the groups. The median BRA score after breast conserving surgery was 2.9.

Conclusion

PRT/PCRT is associated with low grades of fibrosis and a good to excellent long-term cosmetic outcome.

Keywords

Cosmesis Breast conserving surgery Mastectomy Patient rating Panel rating 

Abbreviations

60 Co

Cobalt 60

BCS

Breast-conserving surgery

BCT

Breast-conserving treatment

BRA

Breast retraction assessment

DFS

Disease-free survival

EBRT

External beam radiation therapy

EORTC

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

G

Grading

Gy

Gray

HR

Hazard ratio

HR+

Hormone receptor positive

HR–

Hormone receptor negative

IMRT

Intensity modulated radiotherapy

Inv

Investigator

LDF

Latissimus dorsi flap

LENT-SOMA

Late Effects of Normal Tissues—subjective, objective, management

LHRH

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone

ME

Mastectomy

MRM

Modified radical ME

n. a.

Not available

No

Number

OS

Overall survival

pCR

Pathological complete response

PCRT

Preoperative radiochemotherapy

PRT

Preoperative radiotherapy

RR

Risk ratio

RT

Radiotherapy

SAS

Statistical analysis system

Langfristiges kosmetisches Ergebnis nach neoadjuvanter Radio‑/Chemotherapie bei lokal fortgeschrittenen Brustkrebspatientinnen

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die präoperative Radiotherapie und Chemoradiotherapie (PRT/PCRT) stellen eine zunehmend angewandte klinische Strategie bei verschiedenen Tumorentitäten dar. Wir haben bereits über ein PRT/PRCT-Protokoll bei Patientinnen mit lokal fortgeschrittenem nichtinflammatorischem Mammakarzinom (LABC) mit vielversprechenden klinischen Ergebnissen berichtet. Es bestehen jedoch immer noch Bedenken hinsichtlich eines möglichen ungünstigen Einflusses auf die Kosmetik. Ziel der aktuellen Studie war es daher, das langfristige kosmetische Ergebnis unserer Behandlungsserie von mit PRT/PCRT behandelten LABC-Patienten, die eine brusterhaltenden Operation (BCS) oder einer Mastektomie (ME) erhielten, zu untersuchen.

Patienten und Methoden

Von den 315 Patientinnen, die in den Jahren 1991 bis 1999 mit PRT/PCRT behandelt wurden, lebten noch 203 Patientinnen bei einer Langzeitbeobachtung von durchschnittlich 17,7 Jahren (Spanne 14–21 Jahre). Von den Patientinnen konnten 37 nicht mehr kontaktiert werden und 58 lehnten eine Kontaktaufnahme ab, was dazu führte, dass 107 Patientinnen (64 Patientinnen nach BCS und 43 nach ME) zur Verfügung standen und bereit waren, sich einer weiteren kosmetischen Beurteilung zu unterziehen. Eine Patientin hatte eine komplette pathologische Remission und verweigerte eine anschließende Operation. Die PRT/PCRT bestand aus einer externen Strahlentherapie (EBRT) mit 50 Gy (5 × 2 Gy/Woche) an der Brust und den supra-/infraklavikulären Lymphknoten, kombiniert mit einem konsekutiven Elektronenboost oder (bei BCS) einer interstitiellen Brachytherapie von 10 Gy mit Ir-192 vor EBRT. Insgesamt wurde die Chemotherapie entweder vor der RT oder bei der Mehrzahl der Patientinnen gleichzeitig verabreicht. Die BCS und ME wurden mit und ohne Rekonstruktion durchgeführt. Das kosmetische Ergebnis wurde anhand des Patientenfragebogens, der Einschätzung von Fachpersonal und der Bewertung der Asymmetrie der Brustwarzen (BRA) beurteilt.

Ergebnisse

Von allen BCS-Patientinnen bewerteten 80 % ihr gesamtes kosmetisches Ergebnis als „ausgezeichnet“ oder „gut“ im Vergleich zu 55,8 % nach ME. Die Bewertungen der Patientinnen und des Fachpersonals zu den kosmetischen Ergebnissen waren in beiden Gruppen ähnlich. In keiner der Gruppen wurde eine Fibrose Grad III oder IV festgestellt. Der mediane BRA-Score nach BCS betrug 2,9.

Schlussfolgerung

Eine PRT/PCRT ist mit niedrigen Fibrosegraden und einem guten bis hervorragenden kosmetischen Langzeitergebnis verbunden.

Schlüsselwörter

Ästhetische Wiederherstellung Brusterhaltende Operation Mastektomie Patienteneinschätzung Fachbeurteilung 

Notes

Author Contribution

C. Matuschek, C. Nestle-Kraemling, E. Bölke, and W. Budach had the idea, coordinated the work, and wrote parts of the manuscript. J. Haussmann did the literature research, prepared the data for analysis, and wrote parts of the manuscript. K. Kammers and J. Haussmann did the statistical analysis. S. Wollandt, V. Speer, F.J. Djiepmo Njanang, P.A. Gerber, K. Orth, E. Ruckhaeberle, T. Fehm, S. Corradini, G. Lammering, S. Mohrmann, S. Roth wrote parts of the manuscript. W. Audretsch operated all patients. J. Haussmann contributed significantly to the discussion on the interpretation of the results. C. Matuschek, J. Haussmann, and P.A. Gerber prepared the figures and tables. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

C. Matuschek, C. Nestle-Kraemling, J. Haussmann, E. Bölke, S. Wollandt, V. Speer, F.J. Djiepmo Njanang, B. Tamaskovics, P.A. Gerber, K. Orth, E. Ruckhaeberle, T. Fehm, S. Corradini, G. Lammering, S. Mohrmann, W. Audretsch, S. Roth, K. Kammers, and W. Budach declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

The study was approved by the local ethics committee (No.: 4070).

References

  1. 1.
    Budach W, Kammers K, Boelke E, Matuschek C (2013) Adjuvant radiotherapy of regional lymph nodes in breast cancer—A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Radiat Oncol 8:267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krug D, Baumann R, Budach W et al (2018) Individualization of post-mastectomy radiotherapy and regional nodal irradiation based on treatment response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: A systematic review. Strahlenther Onkol 194:607–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krug D, Baumann R, Budach W et al (2018) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer-background for the indication of locoregional treatment. Strahlenther Onkol 194:797–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piroth MD, Baumann R, Budach W et al (2019) Heart toxicity from breast cancer radiotherapy: Current findings, assessment, and prevention. Strahlenther Onkol 195:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaidar-Person O, Kuten A, Belkacemi Y (2014) Primary systemic therapy and whole breast irradiation for locally advanced breast cancer: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 92:143–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pazos M, Corradini S, Dian D et al (2017) Neoadjuvant radiotherapy followed by mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: An alternative treatment option for locally advanced breast cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 193:324–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerlach B, Audretsch W, Gogolin F et al (2003) Remission rates in breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 179:306–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matuschek C, Bolke E, Roth SL et al (2012) Long-term outcome after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in locally advanced noninflammatory breast cancer and predictive factors for a pathologic complete remission: Results of a multivariate analysis. Strahlenther Onkol 188:777–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cocquyt VF, Blondeel PN, Depypere HT et al (2003) Better cosmetic results and comparable quality of life after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate autologous breast reconstruction compared to breast conservative treatment. Br J Plast Surg 56:462–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coles CE, Brunt AM, Wheatley D, Mukesh MB, Yarnold JR (2013) Breast radiotherapy: Less is more? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 25:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dujmovic A, Marcinko D, Bulic K, Kisic H, Dudukovic M, Mijatovic D (2017) Quality of life and depression among female patients undergoing surgical treatment for breast cancer: A prospective study. Psychiatr Danub 29:345–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nestle-Kramling C, Bolke E, Budach W, Andree C (2016) Breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant radio chemotherapy: Review and personal technique IDEAL concept REV-EJMR-D-15-00268. Eur J Med Res 21:24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roth SL, Audretsch W, Bojar H, Lang I, Willers R, Budach W (2010) Retrospective study of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant radiochemotherapy in locally advanced noninflammatory breast cancer: Survival advantage in cT2 category by neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 186:299–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S (1979) Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5:257–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR et al (1985) Breast retraction assessment: An objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:575–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR, Vora NL, Desai KR, Lipsett JA (1985) Breast retraction assessment. Multiple variable analysis of factors responsible for cosmetic retraction in patients treated conservatively for stage I or II breast carcinoma. Acta Radiol Oncol 24:327–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Limbergen E, van der Schueren E, Van Tongelen K (1989) Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother Oncol 16:159–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mornex F, Pavy JJ, Denekamp J, Bolla M (1997) Scoring system of late effects of radiations on normal tissues: The SOMA-LENT scale. Cancer Radiother 1:622–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubin P, Constine LS 3rd, Fajardo LF, Phillips TL, Wasserman TH (1995) Overview of late effects normal tissues (LENT) scoring system. Radiother Oncol 35(1):9–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rubin P, Constine LS, Fajardo LF, Phillips TL, Wasserman TH (1995) Overview. Late effects of normal tissues (LENT) scoring system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:1041–1042CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang EI, Ly DP, Wey PD (2007) Comparison of aesthetic breast reconstruction after skin-sparing or conventional mastectomy in patients receiving preoperative radiation therapy. Ann Plast Surg 59:78–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hultman CS, Daiza S (2003) Skin-sparing mastectomy flap complications after breast reconstruction: Review of incidence, management, and outcome. Ann Plast Surg 50:249–255 (discussion 255)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Selber JC, Kurichi JE, Vega SJ, Sonnad SS, Serletti JM (2006) Risk factors and complications in free TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 56:492–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krueger EA, Wilkins EG, Strawderman M et al (2001) Complications and patient satisfaction following expander/implant breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:713–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ascherman JA, Hanasono MM, Newman MI, Hughes DB (2006) Implant reconstruction in breast cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:359–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berbers J, van Baardwijk A, Houben R et al (2014) ‘Reconstruction: Before or after postmastectomy radiotherapy?’ A systematic review of the literature. Eur J Cancer 50:2752–2762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nava MB, Pennati AE, Lozza L, Spano A, Zambetti M, Catanuto G (2011) Outcome of different timings of radiotherapy in implant-based breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:353–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baltodano PA, Flores JM, Kone L et al (2014) Abstract 120: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy is not associated with increased post-mastectomy/reconstruction morbidity events: A critical analysis of 85,851 patients from the ACS-NSQIP database. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:135–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mukai H, Watanabe T, Mitsumori M et al (2013) Final results of a safety and efficacy trial of preoperative sequential chemoradiation therapy for the nonsurgical treatment of early breast cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0306. Oncology 85:336–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Touboul E, Lefranc JP, Blondon J et al (1997) Primary chemotherapy and preoperative irradiation for patients with stage II larger than 3 cm or locally advanced non-inflammatory breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 42:219–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Semiglazov VF, Topuzov EE, Bavli JL et al (1994) Primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with primary radiotherapy alone in stage IIb–IIIa breast cancer. Ann Oncol 5:591–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shanta V, Swaminathan R, Rama R, Radhika R (2008) Retrospective analysis of locally advanced noninflammatory breast cancer from Chennai, South India, 1990–1999. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:51–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mukesh MB, Barnett GC, Wilkinson JS et al (2013) Randomized controlled trial of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5‑year results confirm superior overall cosmesis. J Clin Oncol 31:4488–4495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keller LM, Sopka DM, Li T et al (2012) Five-year results of whole breast intensity modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of early stage breast cancer: The Fox Chase Cancer Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:881–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Matuschek
    • 1
  • Carolin Nestle-Kraemling
    • 2
  • Jan Haussmann
    • 1
  • Edwin Bölke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sylvia Wollandt
    • 3
  • Vanessa Speer
    • 1
  • Freddy Joel Djiepmo Njanang
    • 1
  • Bálint Tamaskovics
    • 1
  • Peter Arne Gerber
    • 4
  • Klaus Orth
    • 5
  • Eugen Ruckhaeberle
    • 8
  • Tanja Fehm
    • 8
  • Stefanie Corradini
    • 9
  • Guido Lammering
    • 10
  • Svjetlana Mohrmann
    • 8
  • Werner Audretsch
    • 6
  • Stephan Roth
    • 1
  • Kai Kammers
    • 7
  • Wilfried Budach
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Faculty, Department of Radiation OncologyHeinrich Heine UniversityDusseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of Senology, Gynecology and Obstetrics, EVKTeaching Hospital Heinrich Heine UniversityDusseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Department of SenologySana Kliniken DusseldorfDusseldorfGermany
  4. 4.Department of Dermatology, Medical FacultyHeinrich Heine UniversityDusseldorfGermany
  5. 5.Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic SurgeryHarzklinikenGoslarGermany
  6. 6.Department of Senology and Breast SurgeryMarienhospitalDusseldorfGermany
  7. 7.Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns HopkinsThe Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  8. 8.Department of GynecologyHeinrich Heine UniversityDusseldorfGermany
  9. 9.Department of Radiation OncologyLMU UniversityMunichGermany
  10. 10.Radiotherapy InsituteBergisch GladbachGermany

Personalised recommendations