Search

PURPOSE To describe the quality assurance (QA) program and early toxicities in the phase III randomized trial BONBIS (NCT00907868) on the role of a localized radiation boost in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS From November 2008 to July 2014, 2004 patients were randomized in arm A (only whole breast radiotherapy, WBRT) and arm B (WBRT + boost). The QA program involved 44 participant centers that performed the dummy run (DR). Compliance and uniformity of clinical target volume (CTV) delineations, and dose prescription and delivery according to the BONBIS trial radiotherapy guidelines were analyzed. Acute toxicities (during and up to 3 months after radiotherapy completion, NCI-CTCAE v3.0 classification) were evaluated in 1929 patients. RESULTS The differences in whole breast CTV (CTV1) and planning target volume (PTV1) were ≤10%, and the differences in boost CTV (CTV2) and PTV (PTV2) were ≥20% compared with the reference DR values; 95% of the prescribed dose encompassed 98.7% and 100% of the median CTV1 and CTV2. Grade ≥2 breast erythema (38.3% vs. 22.4% of grade 2 and 5.4% vs. 2.1% of grade 3, p

Background Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents 15% of all breast cancers in France. The first national survey was conducted in 2003. The present multi-center real-life practice survey aimed at assessing possible changes in demographic, clinical, pathologic, and treatment features. Material and Methods From March 2014 to September 2015, patients diagnosed with DCIS from 71 centers with complete information about age, diagnostic features, and treatment modalities were prospectively included. Results A total of 2125 patients with a median age of 58.6 years from 71 centers were studied. DCIS was diagnosed by mammography in 87.5% of cases. Preoperative biopsy was performed in 96% of cases. The median tumor size was 15 mm. Nuclear grade was low, intermediate, and high in 12%, 36%, and 47% of cases, respectively. Margins were considered to be negative in 83% of cases. Overall mastectomy and lumpectomy rates were 25% and 75%, respectively. The immediate breast reconstruction rate was 50%. Sentinel node biopsy and axillary dissection rates were 41% and 2.6%, respectively. After lumpectomy, 97% of patients underwent radiotherapy, and 32% received a boost dose. Only 1% of patients received endocrine therapy. Compared with our previous survey, the median tumor size remained the same, and the proportion of high-grade lesions increased by 9%. The mastectomy rate decreased by 4%. Conclusions The clinical practice identified in this survey complies with French DCIS guidelines. About 10% of patients with low-grade DCIS may be eligible to participate in treatment de-escalation trials.

To assess the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with conventional RT for the quality of life (QOL) of head and neck cancer survivors.Cross-sectional QOL measures (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire C30 and head and neck cancer module) were used with a French multicenter cohort of patients cured of head and neck cancer (follow-upor = 1 year) who had received bilateral neck RT (or = 45 Gy) as a part of their initial treatment. We compared the QOL mean scores regarding RT modality (conventional RT vs. IMRT). The patients of the two groups were matched (one to one) according to the delay between the end of RT and the timing of the QOL evaluation and the T stage. Each QOL item was divided into two relevant levels of severity: "not severe" (responses, "not at all" and "a little") vs. "severe" (responses "quite a bit" and "very much"). The association between the type of RT and the prevalence of severe symptoms was approximated, through multivariate analysis using the prevalence odds ratio.Two comparable groups (67 pairs) were available. Better scores were observed on the head and neck cancer module QOL questionnaire for the IMRT group, especially for dry mouth and sticky saliva (p0.0001). Severe symptoms were more frequent with conventional RT concerning saliva modifications and oral discomfort. The adjusted prevalence odds ratios were 3.17 (p = 0.04) for dry mouth, 3.16 (p = 0.02) for sticky saliva, 3.58 (p = 0.02) for pain in the mouth, 3.35 (p = 0.04) for pain in the jaw, 2.60 (p = 0.02) for difficulties opening the mouth, 2.76 (p = 0.02) for difficulties with swallowing, and 2.68 (p = 0.03) for trouble with eating.The QOL assessment of head and neck cancer survivors demonstrated the benefit of IMRT, particularly in the areas of salivary dysfunction and oral discomfort.