To evaluate toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline and taxane based chemotherapy and whole breast hypofractionated radiotherapy, and to identify the risk factors for toxicity. 537 early breast cancer patients receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy after conservative surgery were enrolled from April 2009 to December 2014, in an Italian cancer institute. The dose was 42.4 Gy in 16 daily fractions, 2.65 Gy per fraction. The boost to the tumor bed was administered only in grade III breast cancer patients and in patients with close or positive margins. Acute and late toxicity were prospectively assessed during and after radiotherapy according to RTOG scale. The impact of patients clinical characteristics, performed treatments and dose inhomogeneities on the occurrence of an higher level of acute skin toxicity and late fibrosis has been evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. The mean age was 74 (range 46-91 yrs). 27% of patients received boost. 22% of cases (n = 119) received also chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 32 months. G1 and G2/G3 acute skin toxicity were 61.3% and 20.5% and G1 and G2/G3 late fibrosis 12.6% and 4.3% respectively. Chemotherapy (p = 0.04), diabetes (p = 0.04) and boost administration (p < 0.01) were found to be statistically significant on the occurrence of late fibrosis, but a multivariate analysis did not show any factors connected. The boost administration (p < 0.01), the breast volume (p = 0.05), dose inhomogeneities (p < 0.01) and boost volume (p = 0.04) were found to be statistically significant as concerns the occurrence of acute skin reaction at the univariate analysis, but only the boost administration (p = 0.02), at multivariate analysis. The results of our study, according to the large randomized trials, confirmed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation is safe, and only the boost administration seems to be an important predictor for toxicity. Chemotherapy does not impact on acute and late skin toxicity.

Local recurrences after breast conserving treatment are mainly close to the original tumor site, and as such shorter fractionation strategies focused on and nearest mammary gland, i.e. accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), have been developed. Stereotactic APBI has been attempted, although there is little experience using CyberKnife (CK) for early breast cancer. This pilot study was designed to assess the feasibility of CK-APBI on 20 evaluable patients of 29 eligible, followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was acute/sub-acute toxicity; secondary endpoints were late toxicity and the cosmetic result. Mean pathological tumor size was 10.5 mm (±4.3, range 3–18), 8 of these patients were classified as LumA-like, 11 as LumB-like, and 1 as LumB-HER2-enriched. Using CK-APBI with Iris, the treatment time was approximately 60 min (range~ 35 to ~ 120). All patients received 30 Gy in five fractions delivered to the PTV. The median number of beams was 180 (IQR 107–213; range:56–325) with a median PTV isodose prescription of 86.0% (IQR 85.0–88.5; range:82–94). The median PTV was 88.1 cm3 (IQR 63.8–108.6; range:32.3–238.8). The median breast V100 and V50 was 0.6 (IQR 0.1–1.5; range:0–13) and 18.6 (IQR 13.1–21.7; range:7.5–37), respectively. The median PTV minimum dose was 26.2 Gy (IQR 24.7–27.6; range 22.3–29.3). Mild side effects were recorded during the period of observation. Cosmetic evaluations were performed by three observers from the start of radiotherapy up to 2 years. Patients’ evaluation progressively increase from 60% to 85% of excellent rating; this trend was similar to that of external observer. These preliminary results showed the safe feasibility of CK-APBI in early breast cancer, with mild acute and late toxicity and very good cosmetic results. The present study is registered at Clinicaltrial.gov ( NCT02896322 ). Retrospectively egistered August 4, 2016.

Aims and Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of neoadjuvant low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, in combination with two anthracycline-docetaxel regimens, in breast cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: Women with stage IIA/B-IIIA breast cancer were assigned to receive the treatment of low-dose fractionated radiotherapy (0.4 Gy/per fraction, 2 fractions per day, for 2 days, every 21 days for 8–6 cycles) with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy with non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and docetaxel. Two chemotherapy schedules were planned to be combined with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy. The first schedule consisted of four cycles of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin sequentially followed by four cycles of docetaxel, and the second schedule consisted of six cycles of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus concomitant docetaxel. Acute toxicity was evaluated according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group score system. Pathological response was evaluated by the Mandard score and expressed as tumor regression grade. Results: Between March 2008 and February 2009, 10 patients underwent low-dose fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy. No grade 3–4 breast toxicity was observed. Five patients had a clinical complete response. Seven patients underwent conservative surgery. Overall, tumor regression grade 1 (absence of residual cancer) was achieved in one patient (10%) and grade 2 (residual isolated cells scattered through the fibrosis) in 4 patients (40%). The pathologic major response rate (tumor regression grade 1 + 2) was 20% in patients receiving low-dose fractionated radiotherapy and sequential non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and docetaxel and 80% in the group receiving low-dose fractionated radiotherapy and concurrent non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and docetaxel treatment. Conclusions: Concomitant low-dose fractionated radiotherapy combined with anthracycline and docetaxel is feasible. The toxicity profile of radio-chemotherapy was similar to that of chemotherapy alone: there was no acute skin or cardiac toxicity. The concurrent application of liposomal doxorubicin and docetaxel with low-dose fractionated radiation led to higher histological response rates compared to the sequential application of the same two drugs.

Aim: To quantify the variability between radiation oncologists (ROs) when outlining axillary nodes in breast cancer. Material and methods: For each participating center, three ROs with different levels of expertise, i.e., junior (J), senior (S) and expert (E), contoured axillary nodal levels (L1, L2, L3 and L4) on the CT images of three different patients (P) of an increasing degree of anatomical complexity (from P1 to P2 to P3), according to contouring guidelines. Consensus contours were generated using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) method. Results: Fifteen centers and 42 ROs participated. Overall, the median Dice similarity coefficient was 0.66. Statistically significant differences were observed according to the level of expertise (better agreement for J and E, worse for S); the axillary level (better agreement for L1 and L4, worse for L3); the patient (better agreement for P1, worse for P3). Statistically significant differences in contouring were found in 18% of the inter-center comparison. Less than a half of the centers could claim to have a good agreement between the internal ROs. Conclusions: The overall intra-institute and inter-institute agreement was moderate. Central lymph-node levels were the most critical and variability increased as the complexity of the patient’s anatomy increased. These findings might have an effect on the interpretation of results from multicenter and even mono-institute studies.

Background: This study was an open-label, 2-arms, monocentric, randomized clinical trial comparing Xonrid®, a topical medical device, versus standard of care (SOC) in preventing and treating acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) and Breast Cancer (BC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). Methods: Eligible HNC and BC patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Xonrid® + SOC or SOC during RT. Patients were instructed to apply Xonrid® on the irradiated area three times daily, starting on the first day of RT and until 2 weeks after RT completion or until the development of grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients who developed an ARD grade < 2 at the 5th week in both groups. Secondary endpoints were median time to grade 2 (G2) skin toxicity onset; changes in skin erythema and pigmentation and trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL); patient-reported skin symptoms. All patients were evaluated at baseline, weekly during RT and 2 weeks after treatment completion. The evaluation included: clinical toxicity assessment; reflectance spectrometry (RS) and TEWL examination; measurement of patients’ quality of life (QoL) through Skindex-16 questionnaire. Results: Eighty patients (40 for each cancer site) were enrolled between June 2017 and July 2018. Groups were well balanced for population characteristics. All BC patients underwent 3-Dimensional Conformal RT (3D-CRT) whereas HNC patients underwent Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). At week 5 the proportion of BC patients who did not exhibit G2 ARD was higher in Xonrid® + SOC group (p = 0.091). In the same group the onset time of G2 ARD was significantly longer than in SOC-alone group (p < 0.0491). For HNC groups there was a similar trend, but it did not reach statistical significance. For both cancer sites, patients’ QoL, measured by the Skindex-16 score, was always lower in the Xonrid® + SOC group. Conclusion: Despite the failure to achieve the primary endpoint, this study suggests that Xonrid® may represent a valid medical device in the prevention and treatment of ARD at least in BC patients, delaying time to develop skin toxicity and reducing the proportion of patients who experienced G2 ARD during RT treatment and 2 weeks later. Trial registration: The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT 52/14 - NCT02261181). Registered on ClinicalTrial.gov on 21st August 2017.