PURPOSE: To our knowledge, NRG/RTOG 9804 is the only randomized trial to assess the impact of whole breast irradiation (radiation therapy [RT]) versus observation (OBS) in women with good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), following lumpectomy. Long-term results focusing on ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), the primary outcome, are presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients underwent lumpectomy for DCIS that was mammogram detected, size ≤ 2.5 cm, final margins ≥ 3 mm, and low or intermediate nuclear grade. Consented patients were randomly assigned to RT or OBS. Tamoxifen use was optional. Cumulative incidence was used to estimate IBR, log-rank test and Gray's test to compare treatments, and Fine-Gray regression for hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of six hundred thirty-six women were randomly assigned from 1999 to 2006. Median age was 58 years and mean pathologic DCIS size was 0.60 cm. Intention to use tamoxifen was balanced between arms (69%); however, actual receipt of tamoxifen varied, 58% RT versus 66% OBS ( P = .05). At 13.9 years' median follow-up, the 15-year cumulative incidence of IBR was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.0 to 11.5) with RT versus 15.1% (95% CI, 10.8 to 20.2) OBS ( P = .0007; HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.66); and for invasive LR was 5.4% (95% CI, 2.7 to 9.5) RT versus 9.5% (95% CI, 6.0 to 13.9) OBS ( P = .027; HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.91). On multivariable analysis, only RT (HR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.64; P = .0007) and tamoxifen use (HR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.78; P = .0047) were associated with reduced IBR. CONCLUSION: RT significantly reduced all and invasive IBR for good-risk DCIS with durable results at 15 years. These results are not an absolute indication for RT but rather should inform shared patient-physician treatment decisions about ipsilateral breast risk reduction in the long term following lumpectomy.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is common in patients undergoing breast radiotherapy. Mepitel film (MF) can reduce RD, but the results from two randomized controlled trials are conflicting. We aimed to conduct a confirmatory randomized controlled trial in patients at risk of RD. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive MF or standard care (2:1 ratio). Patients with large breasts after lumpectomy (bra size ≥ 36 inches or cup size ≥ C) or after mastectomy were eligible. Stratification factors included surgery type, dose fractionation, and administration of boost/bolus. The primary end point was grade (G) 2 or 3 RD using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Secondary end points included patient- and clinician-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and May 2022, 376 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of G2 or 3 RD was significantly lower in MF patients compared with standard care (n = 39/251, 15.5%; 95% CI, 11.3 to 20.6% v n = 57/125, 45.6%; 95% CI, 36.7 to 54.8% respectively, odds ratio (OR): 0.20, P < .0001). Benefits of MF remained significant in patients who developed G 3 RD (n = 7, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.7% v n = 17, 13.6%; 95% CI, 8.1 to 20.9%, OR: 0.19) and moist desquamation (n = 20, 8.0%; 95% CI, 4.9 to 12.0% v n = 24, 19.2%; 95% CI, 12.7 to 27.1%, OR: 0.36). When evaluating the combined patient and health care provider score using Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale, the MF arm had significantly lower scores ( P < .0001). Individual items on the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale also favored the MF for both patient- and clinician-reported outcomes. Blistering/peeling, erythema, pigmentation, and edema were significantly reduced in the MF arm. Three patients removed the film prematurely because of rash (n = 2) and excessive pruritus (n = 1). CONCLUSION: MF significantly reduces RD in patients undergoing breast radiotherapy.

It is not clear to what extent the age of diagnosis and the attained age impact on cancer mortality rates in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We estimated annual prostate cancer mortality rates and 20-year survival rates according to the age of diagnosis, race, grade and time since diagnosis using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) program. We identified 116,796 prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1992 and 1997 and followed them for 20 years. There were 21,896 deaths from prostate cancer. We calculated actuarial survival rates and annual prostate cancer mortality rates by age of diagnosis and by tumor grade. The risk of a man dying of prostate cancer was 17% for men diagnosed before age 70 and was 21% for those diagnosed after age 70. The mean annual prostate cancer mortality rate calculated over the 20-year period post-diagnosis was 1.5%. The annual rate increased from 0.9% for those diagnosed below age 60 to 2.1% for those diagnosed above age 70. For men with Gleason score ≥ 7 prostate cancer, the annual prostate cancer mortality rate peaked 2–3 years after diagnosis and then declined. For men diagnosed with Gleason score ≤ 6 prostate cancer, the annual prostate cancer mortality rate continued to rise 20 years after diagnosis and peaked after age 85. This suggests that high-grade prostate cancers are aggressive from the outset, but that low-grade prostate cancers may enter a state of dormancy and reactivate as the patient ages.

Adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) continues to be the standard of care for women who choose to have breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Modern data suggest that adjuvant RT improves local control and survival after lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy alone.¹ For many tumor sites, technological improvements have increased the precision of RR, including more conformal delivery and better real-time imaging. These improvements have reduced normal tissue exposure and, hence, toxic effects.² For breast RT, however, the decrease in toxic effects has been relatively modest relative to other cancer sites, particularly for women with large breast size, given their increased risk of radiation-related toxic effects.^3-6 Minimizing acute toxic effects is of considerable importance to improve quality of life (QOL) because it has been correlated with late toxic effects in patients with breast cancer.^7-9