Quality of life analysis of adjuvant external beam APBI in prospective randomized trial.
Petr Burkon,
Czech Republic
PO-1276
Abstract
Quality of life analysis of adjuvant external beam APBI in prospective randomized trial.
Authors: Petr Burkon1,2, Iveta Selingerova3,4, Marek Slavik1,2, Tomas Kazda1,2, Miroslav Vrzal1, Pavel Slampa1,2, Katerina Polachova1
1Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Brno, Czech Republic; 2Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Brno, Czech Republic; 3Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Research Centre for Applied Molecular Oncology, Brno, Czech Republic; 4Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Department of Pharmacology, Brno, Czech Republic
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) represents a valid option for adjuvant therapy of selected early breast cancer (BC). Mentioned single-institution prospective randomized study compared the effectiveness and side effects of the external APBI using the stereotactic approach with the more commonly used accelerated WBI. Evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was likewise included. After the 1-year follow-up, the results of the HRQoL analysis are presented.
Material and Methods
Eligible patients were women over 50 years with early BC after breast-conserving surgery. APBI arm consisted of 30 Gy in 5 fractions and WBI of 40,05 Gy in 15 fractions plus 10 Gy in 5 fractions boost on tumour bed. A total of 84 patients were enrolled in the study (42 in APBI and 42 in WBI arm). For HRQoL assessment, patients were asked to complete the official Czech translation of EORTC QoL questionnaires, QLQ-C30, and the QLQ-BR45 questionnaires before the radiation (baseline), at the end of radiation (M0) and 1 (M1), 3 (M3), 6 (M6), and 12 (M12) months after radiation.
Results
No significant difference was observed between the two arms at HRQoL scores at baseline. Global health status and most scores of the functional and symptom scales of QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-BR45 did not show significant differences between arms. Nevertheless, significantly worse scores on the pain and breast symptom scale emerged at the end of radiation in the WBI arm (p<0.001). During the follow-up visits, these differences between arms were gradually disappearing. The future perspective on the functional scale had a better outcome in APBI arm mat M3 and M6. Moreover, patients in APBI arm reported a more favorable global health status at M6.
Conclusion
Early BC patients treated with APBI showed non-inferior short-term and late follow-up HRQoL outcomes compared with WBI. Promising pain and breast symptoms results suggest that APBI should be strongly considered in the treatment choice for selected low-risk patients. Supported by grant NV19-03-00354 of the Czech Ministry of Health.