Radiotherapy after primary CHEMotherapy (RAPCHEM): Practice variation in a Dutch registration study (BOOG 2010-03). (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boersma, Liesbeth J.; Verloop, Janneke; Voogd, Adri C.; Elkhuizen, Paula H.M.; Houben, Ruud; van Leeuwen, A. Elise; Linn, Sabine; de Munck, Linda; Pijnappel, Ruud; Strobbe, Luc; van Dalen, Thijs; Wesseling, Jelle; Poortmans, Philip
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 145(2020)
• Page Start: 201
• Page End: 208
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: Primary systemic treatment -- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy -- Lymph node treatment -- Guidelines -- Practice variation -- Radiation therapy; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.01.018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: Study-guidelines for locoregional RT after PST were moderately adhered to. Adherence to study-guidelines was highest in the high-risk group i.e. ypN2. Most variation was seen in intermediate risk group, i.e. ypN1. Adherence to study-guidelines after ALND was much better than after SN/MARI only. Abstract: Background: We conducted a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands (RAPCHEM: NCT01279304, BOOG 2010-03) in breast cancer (BC) patients treated with primary systemic therapy (PST), followed by surgery and post-operative radiation therapy (RT) according to a predefined consensus-based study-guideline (SG). The aim of the current analysis is to evaluate adherence to the SG. Methods: From January 2011 to January 2015, patients with cT1-2N1 BC treated in 17 Dutch RT Centres were included. Patients with four or more suspicious nodes at imaging were excluded. SG recommended whole breast RT for patients treated with breast conserving therapy. SG on loco(-regional) RT were defined for three risk groups based on the ypN status: (1) ypN0 (low-risk): RT breast and no RT after mastectomy; (2) ypN1 (intermediate-risk): RT breast or chest wall; (3) ypN2 (high-risk): RT breast or chest wall, including regional lymph nodes. Results: We included 848 patients: 292 in the low-risk group; 374 in the intermediate-risk group; 182 in the high-risk group. Overall, 64% of the patients was treated according to the SG; 11% received less RT than the predefined target volumes and 25% received more extensive RT than according to the SG. The largest variation was seen in the intermediate risk group, where only 54% was treated according to the SG. Conclusion: Substantial deviation from the SG for post-operative RT was observed after PST, especially in patients with an intermediate-risk. Future analyses will evaluate outcome of these patients in relation to risk factors and the actual RT given.