Search

Purpose Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is a rare, aggressive variant of breast cancer that has been associated with poor clinical outcomes, as has triple-negative breast (TNBC) cancer. Limited studies compare the clinical characteristics and prognosis of MBC to TNBC. This study uses a large, contemporary US cancer database to compare clinical characteristics and survival outcomes for patients with MBC to those with TNBC. Methods The National Cancer Database was queried for women with cT1-4N1-3M0 MBC or TNBC diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 and treated with definitive surgery. Chi-squared analysis was performed to determine differences between the cohorts. Kaplan-Meier curves compared overall survival (OS), and Cox regression determined patient factors associated with OS. Results Altogether, 55,847 patients met the inclusion criteria; 50,705 (90.8%) had TNBC and 5,142 (9.2%) had MBC. Most patients had no comorbid conditions (82%), N0 disease (71%), poorly differentiated histology (77%), received chemotherapy (87%), and received radiation therapy (60%). Amongst all patients, patients with TNBC disease were observed to have greater OS than those with MBC (5-year OS 72.0% vs 55.8%, p, Highlights • Metaplastic breast cancer is associated with poor clinical outcomes. • Metaplastic breast cancer associated with worse survival than patients with triple negative invasive ductal carcinoma. • Radiation therapy and chemotherapy associated with improved survival for patients with metaplastic breast cancer.

Highlights • Proton pelvic reirradiation results in lower bone marrow dose compared to photons. • Proton pelvic reirradiation of the pelvis is well tolerated with limited toxicities., Introduction Pelvic reirradiation (re-RT) presents challenges due to concerns for late toxicity to tissues-at-risk including pelvic bone marrow (PBM). We routinely utilize a hyperfractionated, accelerated re-RT for recurrent rectal or anal cancer in the setting of prior radiation. We hypothesized that proton beam radiation (PBR) is uniquely suited to limit doses to pelvic non-target tissues better than photon-based approaches. Materials and methods All patients who received hyperfractionated, accelerated PBR re-RT to the pelvis from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Re-RT was delivered twice daily with a 6 h minimum interfraction interval at 1.5 Gray Relative Biological Effectiveness (Gy(RBE)) per fraction to a total dose of 39–45 Gy(RBE). Concurrent chemotherapy was given to all patients. Comparison photon plans were generated for dosimetric analysis. Dosimetric parameters compared using a matched-pair analysis and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Survival analysis was performed Kaplan Meier curves. Results Fifteen patients were identified, with a median prior pelvic RT dose of 50.4 Gy (range 25–80 Gy). Median time between the initial RT and PBRT re-RT was 4.7 years (range 1.0–36.1 years). In comparison to corresponding photon re-RT plans, PBR re-RT plans had lower mean PBM dose, and lower volume of PBM getting 5 Gy, 10 Gy, 20 Gy, and 30 Gy (p

Purpose: Proton therapy for prostate cancer may reduce bowel dose and risk of bowel symptoms relative to photon-based methods. Here, we determined the effect of using a biodegradable, injectable hydrogel spacer on rectal dose on plans for treating prostate cancer with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) or passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT). Materials and Methods: Pairs of IMPT and PSPT plans for 9 patients were created from fused computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scans obtained before and after spacer injection. Calculated values of rectal V40, V60, V70, V80, and maximum dose (Dmax) were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Displacements at the base (BP), midgland (MP), and apex (AP) of the prostate relative to the anterior rectal wall with the spacer in place were averaged for each patient and correlated with V70 by using linear regression models. Results: The presence of a spacer reduced all dosimetric parameters for both PSPT and IMPT, with the greatest difference in V70, which was 81.1% lower for PSPT-with-spacer than for IMPT-without-spacer. Median displacements at BP, MP, and AP were 12 mm (range 7-19), 2 mm (range 0-4), and 1 mm (range 0-5) without the spacer and 19 mm (range 12-23), 10 mm (range 8-16), and 7 mm (range 2-12) with the spacer. Modest linear trends were noted between rectal V70 and displacement for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer. When displacement was ≥8 mm, V70 was ≤5.1% for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer. Conclusion: Use of biodegradable hydrogel spacers for prostate cancer treatment provides a significant reduction of radiation dose to the rectum with proton therapy. Significant reductions in rectal dose occurred in both PSPT and IMPT plans, with the greatest reduction for IMPT-with-spacer relative to PSPT alone. Prospective studies are ongoing to assess the clinical impact of reducing rectal dose with hydrogel spacers.