International Journal of Surgical Oncology

International Journal of Surgical Oncology / 2021 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 2476527 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2476527

Solmaz Hashemi, Seyedmohammadreza Javadi, Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari, Hamidreza Mirzaei, Seied Rabi Mahdavi, "Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer", International Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 2021, Article ID 2476527, 9 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2476527

Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer

Academic Editor: Gaetano Gallo
Received17 May 2020
Revised31 Mar 2021
Accepted07 Apr 2021
Published16 Apr 2021

Abstract

Background. The standard treatment for breast cancer is breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy. If external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can be safely replaced with intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), it will help patients to save their breast and to have equivocal or better results in DFS and overall survival (OS). Methods. A total of 2022 patients with breast cancer treated during 6 years were enrolled in the current study. A total of 657, 376, and 989 patients received EBRT, radical, and boost dose by IORT, respectively, according to the IRIORT consensus protocol. The primary endpoint was recurrence and death. The secondary endpoint was the role of variables in recurrence and death. Results. With a mean follow-up of 34.5 and 40.18 months for the IORT and EBRT groups, respectively, there was a significant difference in DFS between electron boost and X-ray boost groups () and the electron radical group compared with EBRT (), but there was no significant difference between other boost and radical groups in DFS and OS. Conclusions. IORT can be a preferred treatment modality because of its noninferior outcomes, and in some special conditions, it has superior outcomes compared to EBRT, particularly in delivering radical dose with IORT.

1. Background

In the 19th century, breast cancer was treated by invasive surgical approach, which was described by Halstead as a radical mastectomy [1]. With the introduction of breast-conserving surgery (BCS), this method, along with radiotherapy, came to be considered as the standard in breast cancer surgery. During this time, various studies with more than 20 years of follow-up showed no difference in treatment outcomes between BCS with radiotherapy and modified radical mastectomy [24]. Even in recent studies, it has been shown that preserving the breast can save the lives of patients with breast cancer [5]. Radiotherapy in BCS is of high importance for obtaining the ideal results in terms of recurrence and survival [68]. Radiotherapy can eradicate residual tumor cells by single- or double-stranded breakage of DNA and creation of free radicals [9]. Patients receiving external whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) received 45–50 Gy of radiation in 25 fractions over 5-6 weeks, followed by a booster of 10 Gy in 5 fractions. Because of the length of radiotherapy, some patients eschew BCS and prefer mastectomy [10]. Furthermore, radiation can damage adjacent organs such as the lungs and heart, and acute and chronic complications such as erythema, burns, skin dryness, fibrosis, fat necrosis, and telangiectasia can occur [11].

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) technique delivered at the time of lumpectomy. It has manifold advantages such as giving radiation therapy to the well-vascularized and oxygenated bed of tumor, the limitation of tumor cell repopulations, reduction in cytokine production, giving a minimum dose of radiation to adjacent organs, and patient convenience [12]. In 2009, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) consensus published a guideline for APBI and recommended three categories (suitable, cautionary, and unsuitable) for patient selection.

In a randomized noninferiority trial, Vaidya et al. compared IORT (20–50 kV) with WBI (40–56 Gy ± boost). Two-thirds of patients received IORT at the time of lumpectomy (prepathology group) and one-third received IORT after the preparation of the pathology report (postpathology group). At 29 months of follow-up, TARGIT-A had a higher rate of local recurrence in the IORT group (3.3% vs. 1.3%; ). Local recurrence was significantly different in the postpathology group (5.4% vs. 1.7%; ), but not in the prepathology group (2.1% vs. 1.1% ), and there was no difference in overall survival (OS) [13].

Veronesi et al. compared IORT (21 Gy-6–9 MeV) with WBI (50 Gy/25 fractions + 10 Gy boost). A 21 Gy with 6–9 MeV electron was delivered to 1305 women aged 48–75 years old with a tumor size of 2.5 cm. With a mean follow-up of 5.8 years, local recurrence had a higher rate (4.4% vs. 0.4%; ), and there was no difference in survival (96.8% vs. 96.9%) [14].

In this study, we delivered IORT with both X-ray and electrons and divided each group into radical and boost dose subgroups according to the IRIORT (Islamic Republic intraoperative radiotherapy) consensus. Then, we compared the efficacy of this modality with the control group that received WBRT.

2. Materials and Methods

A total of 2022 patients with breast cancer treated with BCS in three centers under the supervision of the Cancer Research Center of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran) were enrolled between September 2013 and September 2019. In each center, the technique of radiotherapy was different. The eligibility of patients to receive the radical or boost dose of IORT was determined by patients’ demographic, pathologic, and biological factors according to the IRIORT consensus (Table 1).


Patients’ factorsSuitablePossibleContraindicated

Age50≤45–50<45
Tumor size≤33–3.5≥3.5
MarginsNegativeNegativePositive
Grade1 and 2Any
LVINegativeAnyPositive
ER statusPositiveAny
MulticentricityNoNoYes
MultifocalityNoYes
IDCYesYes
ILCYesYes
Pure DCIS≤3 cm3-4 cm>4 cm
EIC<25%≥25%Diffuse
Her2Any
Ki67<30%≥30%
Nodal statusNegativeNegative (i−, i+)Positive
Axillary surgerySLNBSLNB, ALND
Neoadjuvant treatmentNot allowedNot allowedIf used

LVI, lymphovascular invasion; EIC, extensive in situ component; SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy; ALND, axillary lymph node dissection; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ.

The patients were divided into the following groups:The first group: BCS was performed for 657 patients. They received 45–50 Gy external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in 25 fractions for 5-6 weeks and then 10 Gy boost dose in 5 fractions.The second group: intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) was delivered to 1075 patients after the removal of the tumor. IOERT was performed, using LIAC (light intraoperative accelerator), a mobile linear accelerated delivering energy levels of the electron (6–12 MeV). The patients categorized as suitable and possible groups in the IRIORT consensus received 21 Gy as a radical dose; otherwise, they would receive 12 Gy as a boost dose by making flaps in breast tissue around the tumor cavity with a maximum thickness of 2 cm. The protection of the chest wall was achieved using lead discs. Supplemental EBRT was delivered for patients who received the boost dose. The second group was divided in this way into 2 subgroups of electron radical (21 Gy) and electron boost (12 Gy).The third group: after doing BCS for 375 patients and the assurance of margin status in the frozen section, 20 Gy intraoperative X-ray radiation therapy (IOXRT) of 50 kV was delivered to breast tissue around the tumor cavity. IOXRT was performed using INTRABEAM ZEISS. If demographic, pathologic, and biological characteristics of the tumor, according to IRIORT (Islamic Republic intraoperative radiotherapy), were in suitable and possible groups, IORT would be mentioned as a radical dose and the patients would continue therapy by chemotherapy and hormone therapy. Otherwise, a boost dose would be used and the patient would need supplemental EBRT. The third group was divided into subgroups of X-ray radical and X-ray boost.

Patients with invasive breast cancer would be excluded from the study if they had metastatic disease, refused treatment, or did not continue the treatment. Patients were visited by the surgeon and radiooncologist every six months for up to two years. Next, mammography was performed yearly one year after the surgery and then every two years. If the interval visit time of every patient exceeded more than one year, telephone contact would be initiated to determine the last situation of the patients.

Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to the occurrence of recurrence (as local recurrence or distant metastasis in two groups of bone metastasis and other organ metastasis). OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to the last follow-up of the patient or the time of death.

Overall, 2022 patients were enrolled in this study, 657 of whom were assigned to the control group and received EBRT. A total of 1021 patients received IOERT, 706 of whom received the boost dose and 315 who received the radical dose. Of 344 patients who received IOXRT, 283 received the boost dose and 61 received the radical dose. Patients in the X-ray radical and electron radical groups were compared with stages 1 and 2 of the control group, and patients in the X-ray boost and electron boost groups were compared with stages 1, 2, and 3 of the control group.

The present longitudinal nonrandomized cohort study compared the recurrence and survival of the electron radical and X-ray radical groups with the EBRT group and the electron boost and X-ray boost groups with the EBRT group.

The primary endpoints were recurrence (local and distant) and death. The secondary endpoints were the role of age, tumor size, positive lymph nodes, grade, LVI, HR, Her2, and ki67 factors in recurrence and death.

Cumulative hazard function and survival plots were drawn using the Kaplan–Meier method. The log-rank test was used to evaluate the survival difference between the two treatment radiotherapy groups, as well. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the variables in DFS and OS were evaluated using a univariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Only variables that were significant in levels 0 and 1 were evaluated with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. SPSS was used to analyze the data.

3. Results

As mentioned above, 989 patients received the boost dose of IORT, 706 and 283 of who were in the electron boost and X-ray boost groups, respectively.

Table 2 presents the characteristics of patients and tumors in the EBRT and IORT groups.


EBRTElectron boostX-ray -boostTotal
N%N%N%N%
6571007061002831001646100

Stage
 18913.50132193010.6025124.70
 242865.1043061.8016859.40102657.40
 314021.3013419.30853035917.90
 Total6571006961002831001636100

Size
31253.1037458.3011542.4080160.00
 2.5 = 3 cm14424.509915.403914.4028217.00
13222.4016926.3011743.2041823.10
 Total5881006421002711001501100

Grade
 1548.60477.003112.3013210.30
 233653.4037956.809738.3081253.50
 32393824136.1012549.4060536.20
 Total6291006671002531001549100

LVI
 Positive2544232849.9011872.4070043.00
 Negative3515832950.104527.6072557.00
 Total6051006571001631001425100

Ki67
3211.8017629.002335.9023127.10
23988.2043171.004164.1071172.90
 Total27110060710064100942100

ER
 Positive37276.4051772.3017572.30106477.30
 Negative11523.6015827.706727.7034022.70
 Total4871006751002421001404100

HER2
 Positive9123.808914.006825.5024819.10
 Negative29276.2054786.0019974.50103880.90
 Total3831006361002671001286100

Age
16024.9013520.908831.1038319.80
 =40–5019330.0023636.5010035.3052931.90
29045.1027542.609533.6066048.30
 Total6431006461002831001572100

Histology
 IDC59190.9044964.5016162.60120174.90
 ILC253.808311.903513.601438.90
 IDC + DCIS233.509313.403915.201559.70
 IDC + ILC20.30608.60197.40815.10
 Others91.40111.6031.20231.40

Adjuvant therapy
 CT + HT24568.4043572.0016670.0084670.60
 HT alone339.20193.1062.50584.80
 CT alone8022.3015024.806527.4029524.60
 Total3581006041002371001199100

Local recurrence occurred in 2.7% (18 patients), 2.4% (17 patients), and 2.1% (6 patients) of the patients of the EBRT, electron boost, and X-ray boost groups, respectively. There was no significant difference among these groups. Bone metastasis constituted 2.3% (15 patients), 0.8% (6 patients), and 3.5% (10 patients) of the EBRT, electron boost, and X-ray boost groups, respectively. Bone metastasis occurred less in the group that received the electron boost. Other distant organ metastasis was 3.7% (24 patients), 2.8% (20 patients), and 3.5% (10 patients) in the EBRT, electron boost, and X-ray boost groups, respectively. Death occurred in 2.9% (19 patients), 2% (14 patients), and 2.1% (6 patients) in the EBRT, electron boost, and X-ray boost groups, respectively. Concerning death, there was no significant difference in these groups.

Table 3 presents factors associated with recurrence among patients that received a boost dose of IORT.


Electron boostX-ray boost value
N%N%

Stage17/1255.300/300.000.002
218/4124.209/1595.40
312/1229.0012/7314.10

Size14/3603.706/1095.200.021
2.5 = 3 cm6/936.101/382.600.96
14/1558.3012/10510.30

Grade12/454.302/296.500.12
214/3653.704/934.100.008
319/2227.9013/11210.40

LVIPositive18/3105.5011/1079.300.4
Negative18/3115.503/426.70

KI678/1684.500/230.000.37
24/4075.602/394.90

HER2Positive5/845.605/637.400.85
Negative29/5185.3015/1847.50

ERPositive25/4924.8010/1655.70
Negative10/1486.3010/5714.900.04

PRPositive19/4314.200/00.00
Negative9/1595.400/00.000.19

Age7/1285.206/826.800.09
=40–5014/2225.9010/9010.000.56
12/2634.405/905.30

Patients receiving a boost dose of radiotherapy by IORT, stage, tumor size, grade, and hormone receptors had a significant difference in the increase of local recurrence risk (Table 3).

In the univariate analysis, there was a lower recurrence rate in stages 1 and 2 in comparison with stage 3 (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15–0.66, and HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28–0.64; ), grade 2 tumors in comparison with grade 3 tumors (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38–0.86; ), hormone receptor positive tumors in comparison with hormone receptor negative tumors (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38–0.97; ), and tumor size of ≤2.5 cm in comparison with a tumor size of >3 cm (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36–0.92; ). In the multivariate analysis of these variables, grade 2 tumors had a lower recurrence rate with 44% HR in comparison with grade 3 tumors (). The 5-year DFS for EBRT, electron boost, and X-ray boost groups was 91.3%, 92.3%, and 89.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference between electron boost and EBRT () and between X-ray boost and EBRT (). However, there was a significant difference between electron boost and X-ray boost groups (), and the electron boost group had a better DFS (Figure 1).

The 5-year OS in EBRT, electron boost, and X-ray boost groups was 95.1%, 97.5%, and 97.2%, respectively. In terms of OS, there was no significant difference between the electron boost group and the EBRT (), X-ray boost and EBRT () group, and the electron boost and X-ray boost group () (Figure 2).

In the univariate analysis, death showed a significant difference in stage 3 compared with stages 1 and 2 (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11–0.96, and HR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11–0.47; ), but had no significant difference in the multivariate analysis.

A total of 376 patients received a radical dose of IORT, 315 and 61 of who were in electron radical and X-ray radical groups, respectively. Table 4 presents the characteristics of patients and tumors in the EBRT and IORT groups.


EBRTElectron radicalX-ray radicalTotal
N%N%N%N%
51710031510061100893100

Stage
 18917.2022270.902440.0033537.60
 242882.809129.103660.0055562.40
 Total51710031310060100890100

Size
23752.7027688.204678.0055968.00
 2.5 = 3 cm8318.40258.001118.6011914.50
13028.90123.8023.4014417.50
 Total45010031310059100822100

Grade
 1469.305016.801526.3011113.10
 226152.7018160.702543.9046754.90
 318838.006722.501729.8027232.00
 Total49510029810057100850100

LVI
 Positive18839.703511.901076.9023329.80
 Negative28660.3026088.10323.1054970.20
 Total47410029510013100782100

Ki67
2712.2010136.5000.0012825.40
19587.8017663.504100.0037574.60
 Total2221002771004100503100

ER
 Positive37276.4025683.903981.3066779.40
 Negative11523.604916.10918.8017320.60
 Total48710030510048100840100

HER2
 Positive9123.805218.301119.3015421.30
 Negative29276.2023281.704680.7057078.70
 Total38310028410057100724100

Age
11021.9031.0000.0011312.90
 =40–5016633.007222.901931.7025729.30
22745.1023976.104168.3050757.80
 Total50310031410060100877100

Histology
 IDC48394.5021870.103979.6074085.00
 ILC203.905317.00510.20789.00
 IDC + DCIS00.00196.1000.00192.20
 IDC + ILC00.00175.50510.20222.50
 Others81.6041.3000.00121.40

Adjuvant therapy
 CT + HT24568.4011751.102665.0038861.90
 HT alone339.207834.10717.5011818.80
 CT alone8022.303414.80717.5012119.30
 Total358100.00229100.0040100.00627100.00

Local recurrence occurred in 1.9% (10 patients), 1% (3 patients), and 1.6% (1 patient) of the patients of the EBRT, electron radical, and X-ray radical groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in these groups. Bone metastasis was 1.9% (10 patients), 0%, and 1.6% (1 patient) in the EBRT, electron radical, and X-ray radical groups, respectively. Bone metastasis did not occur in the electron radical group.

Other distant organ metastasis was 2.3% (12 patients), 1% (3 patients), and 2.3% (2 patients) in the EBRT, electron radical, and X-ray radical groups, respectively. Also, there was a lower rate of other organ metastasis in the electron radical group. Death occurred in 1.4% (7 patients), 0.6% (2 patients), and 1.6% (1 patient) of the patients of the EBRT, electron radical, and X-ray radical groups, respectively. A lower death rate occurred in the electron radical group.

Table 5 presents the factors associated with recurrence among patients who received a radical dose of IORT.


Electron radicalX-ray radical value
N%N%

Stage14/2181.802/228.300.08
22/892.201352.80

Size5/2711.802/444.300.02
2.5 = 3 cm1/244.001/109.10

Grade11/492.000/150.000.15
23/1781.702/238.000.71
32/653.001/165.90

LVIPositive1/342.900/100.000.58
Negative5/2551.900/30.00

Ki674/974.000/00.000.95
2/1741.100/40.00

HER2Positive0/520.000/110.000.4
Negative6/2262.603/436.50

ERPositive5/2512.000/390.000.25
Negative1/482.001/811.10

PRPositive5/2232.200/00.000.14
Negative1/581.700/00.00

In a univariate analysis of variables in patients receiving a radical dose of radiotherapy by IORT, tumor size (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16–0.90; ) and electron beam (HR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15–0.91; ) had a significant difference in the increase of local recurrence risk, but there was no significant difference in the multivariate analysis. The 5-year DFS of EBRT, electron radical, and X-ray radical groups was 93.5%, 96.7%, and 91.9%, respectively.

There was a significant difference in DFS between the electron radical group and EBRT (), but there was no significant difference between the X-ray radical group and EBRT () and the electron radical and X-ray radical groups () (Figure 3).

The 5-year OS in EBRT, electron radical, and X-ray radical groups was 97.3%, 98.9%, and 96.8%, respectively. In terms of OS, there was no significant difference between the electron radical group and EBRT (), the X-ray radical group and EBRT (), and the electron radical group and the X-ray radical group () (Figure 4).

In the univariate analysis of variables, there was a significant difference in OS in patients with hormone receptor positive in comparison with hormone receptor negative patients (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.07–0.88; ). But, there was no significant difference in the multivariate analysis.

4. Discussion

IORT not only has a noninferior outcome in comparison with EBRT but also has a superior outcome under other conditions. In the present study, IORT, as a boost dose, does not show a significant difference with EBRT in terms of DFS and OS. However, stage, tumor size, grade, and hormone receptors of the tumor showed a significant difference in the increase of local recurrence risk.

In an analysis conducted in our center on locally advanced patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in the IORT of patients with the photon in comparison with the electron as a boost dose and EBRT, the rate of events was lower, although there was no significant difference [15]. The biological effects of IORT consist of single- and double-stranded breakage of DNA, limitation of tumor cell repopulations, and reduction in cytokine production that affects the tissue microenvironment and immune system [16]. Relative biological effectiveness is a change in tissue microenvironment that is not favorable to invasion or tumor growth.

A single large dose of radiotherapy causes an immune response that regresses tumor growth in areas that are not irradiated or in distant metastasis. Mole called it the “abscopal effect” in 1953 as the antitumor effect of radiotherapy in a site other than the primary site of the tumor [17, 18]. Thus, IORT acts like a vaccine that stimulates the immune system and protects the patient against cancer.

We conducted a study in the cancer research center on 968 patients with breast cancer (IDC and ILC) to compare IOERT (a boost dose) with EBRT. The findings suggested that IOERT was noninferior in comparison with EBRT () [19].

Multiple studies evaluated IORT when it was used as the boost dose. One was Chang’s study, which enrolled 55 patients to receive 5 Gy 50 kV X-rays. At a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, they had no local recurrence [20].

These findings of this study were in line with a study carried out by Fitedastner et al., who enrolled 1109 patients who received 10 Gy electrons as the boost dose. With six years of follow-up, the local recurrence rate was 0.8% [21].

Vaidya et al. enrolled 299 patients to receive 20 Gy 50 kV X-ray as boost dose like the TARGIT method. At 60.5 months of follow-up, the locoregional recurrence rate was 1.7% [22]. So, it seems that giving a boost dose of radiotherapy by IORT is an acceptable method.

In the present study, DFS in patients, who received IOERT as a radical dose, had a significant statistical difference with EBRT (), but not in the IOXRT group and the univariate analysis of variables; tumor size had a significant difference in the increase of local recurrence risk (). OS showed no significant difference in groups that received a radical dose of IORT in comparison with the EBRT group; however, hormone receptors of tumor caused a significant difference in the OS (), which was not established by multivariate analysis.

TARGIT-A and ELIOT trials were based on 50 Gy low kV energy and high-voltage electron beam, respectively. They evaluated local recurrence in comparison with EBRT. Local recurrence rate for TARGIT-A and ELIOT was 3.3 vs. 1.3% () and 4.4% vs. 0.4% () [20], respectively [13, 14].

In a recent study, 1153 patients received delayed targeted IORT, and local recurrence and survival were compared with EBRT. Patients were younger than 45 years old with a tumor size of ≤3.5 cm. With a mean follow-up of 9 years, there was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence-free survival (), mastectomy-free survival (), distant DFS (), and OS () [23].

In another study conducted in our center, we compared local recurrence in IOERT as a radical dose with EBRT, and there was no significant recurrence between groups () [24]. Montpelier delivered 21 Gy IOERT for 42 patients between 2004 and 2007. With 6 years of follow-up, local recurrence was 9.5% [25]. A different approach to radiotherapy by doing IORT may thus be indicated.

5. Conclusions

IORT can be a preferred treatment modality to WBRT because of its noninferior outcomes, and in some conditions, using better patient selection for delivering a radical dose by IORT, it has superior outcomes compared to EBRT. Patient convenience is one advantage of IORT, in which the patient does not spend a great deal of time in radiotherapy centers for a long time, and it protects the patient from EBRT complications.

We could expand our descriptions for patient selection in the IORT groups and deliver IORT even to younger patients, larger tumor sizes, and other histologies, such as ILC and DCIS. We could develop IORT usage for in-breast tumor recurrences and use BCS with IORT in these cases. The era of PBI has represented a paradigm shift in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer similar to that of the introduction of BCS as an alternative to mastectomy.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. W. S. Halsted, “The results of operation for the cure of cancer of the breast performed at the Johns Hopkins hospital from June, 1889, to January 1894,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 20, pp. 497–555, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. B. Fisher, S. Anderson, J. Bryant et al., “Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 347, no. 16, pp. 1233–1241, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. U. Veronesi, N. Cascinelli, L. Mariani et al., “Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 347, no. 16, pp. 1227–1232, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Litière, G. Werutsky, I. S. Fentiman et al., “Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 412–419, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. E. Akbari, M. Khayamzadeh, H. R. Mirzaei et al., “Saving the breast saves the lives of breast cancer patients,” International Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 2020, Article ID 8709231, 8 pages, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. B. Fisher, J. Bryant, J. J. Dignam et al., “Tamoxifen, radiation therapy, or both for prevention of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy in women with invasive breast cancers of one centimeter or less,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, pp. 4141–4149, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. S. Darby, P. McGale, C. Correa et al., “Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10 year recurrence and 15 year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomized trials,” Lancet, vol. 378, pp. 1707–1716, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. K. S. Hughes, L. A. Schnaper, J. R. Bellon et al., “Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 19, pp. 2382–2387, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. J. A. Reisz, N. Bansal, J. Qian, W. Zhao, and C. M. Furdui, “Effects of ionizing radiation on biological molecules-mechanisms of damage and emerging methods of detection,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 260–292, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. W. F. Athas, M. Adams-Cameron, W. C. Hunt, A. Amir-Fazli, and C. R. Key, “Travel distance to radiation therapy and receipt of radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery,” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 269–271, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. S. F. Shaitelman, P. J. Schlembach, I. Arzu et al., “Acute and short-term toxic effects of conventionally fractionated vs hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 931–941, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. F. Sedlmayer, H. B. K. Rahim, H. Dieter Kogelnik et al., “Quality assurance in breast cancer brachytherapy: geographic miss in the interstitial boost treatment of the tumor bed,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology∗Biology∗Physics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1133–1139, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. J. S. Vaidya, M. Baum, J. S. Tobias et al., “Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy (targit): an innovative method of treatment for early breast cancer,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1075–1080, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. U. Veronesi, R. Orecchia, P. Maisonneuve et al., “Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 14, no. 13, pp. 1269–1277, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. N. Moini, N. Nafissi, M. E. Akbari et al., “Compairing the outcome of intraoperative radiotherapy with electron (IOERT) and low-kV X-ray (IOXRT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” International Journal of Cancer Management, vol. 12, no. 8, Article ID e94547, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. B. Belletti, J. S. Vaidya, S. D’Andrea et al., “Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy impairs the stimulation of breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion caused by surgical wounding,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1325–1332, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. N. Brix, A. Tiefenthaller, H. Anders, C. Belka, and K. Lauber, “Abscopal, immunological effects of radiotherapy: narrowing the gap between clinical and preclinical experiences,” Immunological Reviews, vol. 280, no. 1, pp. 249–279, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. R. H. Mole, “Whole body irradiation-radiobiology or medicine?” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 26, no. 305, pp. 234–241, 1953. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. H. Moayeri, M. E. Akbari, S. R. Mahdavi, H. R. Mirzaei, A. Salati et al., “Outcomes of breast cancer (invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma) treated with boost intraoperative electron radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy,” International Journal of Cancer Management, vol. 12, no. 1, Article ID e84850, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. D. W. Chang, L. te Marvelde, and B. H. Chua, “Prospective study of local control and late radiation toxicity after intraoperative radiation therapy boost for early breast cancer,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology∗Biology∗Physics, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 73–79, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. G. Fitedastner, F. Sedlmayer, F. Mertz et al., “IORT with electrons as boost strategy during breast conserving therapy in limited stage breast cancer. long term results of an ISIORT pooled analysis,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 108, pp. 279–286, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. S. Vaidya, M. Baum, J. S. Tobias et al., “Long-Term results of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (targit) boost during breast-conserving surgery,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 1091–1097, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. J. S. Vaidya, M. Bulsara, C. Saunders et al., “Effect of delayed targeted intraoperative radiotherapy vs whole-breast radiotherapy on local recurrence and survival long-term results from the TARGIT-a randomized clinical trial in early breast cancer,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 6, no. 7, Article ID e200249, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. A. Salati, M. E. Akbari, N. Nafisi et al., “Comparing outcome of radical dose intraoperative radiotherapy with electron (IOERT) according to IRIORT consensus and external beam radiotherapy in early breast cancer,” International Journal of Cancer Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 63–69, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. C. Lemanski, D. Azria, S. Gourgou-Bourgade et al., “Electrons for intraoperative radiotherapy in selected breast-cancer patients: late results of the Montpellier phase II trial,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 191, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Solmaz Hashemi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views511
Downloads513
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.