Early Results of the French Multicenter, Randomized SHARE Trial Comparing Whole Breast Irradiation vs. Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation in Postmenopausal Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Purpose/Objective(s)The aim is to report toxicity and cosmetic outcomes at 3 and up to 9 years of follow-up of post-menopausal patients randomized to receive either standard whole breast irradiation (WBI), including hypofractionated options, versus accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI).Materials/MethodsFrom December 2010 to July 2015, 1006 patients were enrolled in 34 French centers. Among the whole population, 28 patients who did not meet the final selection criteria or withdrew consent were excluded leading to a modified intention to treat analysis dataset of 978 patients (WBI: n = 488; APBI: n = 490). Median age (65y) and tumor stage pT1 (99%) rates were similar in both arms. Patients had conservative surgery with clip placement in the tumor bed. Clear margins (> 2mm) were observed in 99% of the patients. In both arms, 96-97% of the patients had negative sentinel lymph node biopsy. The median time interval between surgery and radiotherapy was 57d in WBI vs 62d in APBI. WBI schedules consisted of 50 Gy in 25 fr+16 Gy (n = 212) or 40 Gy in 15 fr (n = 156) or 42.5 Gy in 16 fr (n = 120). APBI arm consisted of 38.5 Gy or 40 Gy in 10 fr, 2 fr/day. Overall, 94 patients from the APBI arm finally received standard WBI. For statistical considerations, SHARE trial, sponsored by UNICANCER (NCT01247233) is a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing APBI versus WBI in terms of local control as primary objective. Secondary endpoints were severe toxicity (NCI-CTCAE v4 grade ≥ 2), and cosmetic results. For both outcomes, we estimated the cumulative incidences (CI) using Kalbfleish and Prentice method, considering disease relapse, secondary cancer or death as competing events. Treatment effect (APBI vs WBI) was estimated by cause-specific Hazard Ratios (cs-HR) from Cox models.ResultsMedian follow-up was 5.8y (range, 0.13-9.5). The number of deaths was 27, and the number of local relapses was 8. Among the 978 patients, 582 and 396 had finally WBI and APBI, respectively. The rates of post-operative hematoma, edema and infection were low: 8-9%, 2%, 3-2%, respectively. When considering any type of severe toxicity, we observed a significant reduction rate in APBI compared to WBI: cs-HR = 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.88); p = 0.001, and 3-year CI of severe toxicity at 45% in WBI vs 36% in APBI arm. The difference was also in favor of APBI when considering breast skin toxicity alone: cs-HR = 0.55 (0.44-0.70), p<0.001 and 3-year CI at 36% in WBI vs 21% in APBI arm. Conversely, for breast other toxicities, WBI was found less toxic than APBI with a 3-year CI of 8% vs 15%, respectively. When considering cosmetic results, we observed no significant difference between the two arms in both evaluations by physicians and patients.ConclusionHistorically SHARE is the first APBI trial that included hypofractionated schedules in the standard arm. We report increased risk of severe toxicity and skin breast toxicity in standard arm as compared with APBI arm without any difference in terms of cosmetic results. Longer follow-up is needed. The aim is to report toxicity and cosmetic outcomes at 3 and up to 9 years of follow-up of post-menopausal patients randomized to receive either standard whole breast irradiation (WBI), including hypofractionated options, versus accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). From December 2010 to July 2015, 1006 patients were enrolled in 34 French centers. Among the whole population, 28 patients who did not meet the final selection criteria or withdrew consent were excluded leading to a modified intention to treat analysis dataset of 978 patients (WBI: n = 488; APBI: n = 490). Median age (65y) and tumor stage pT1 (99%) rates were similar in both arms. Patients had conservative surgery with clip placement in the tumor bed. Clear margins (> 2mm) were observed in 99% of the patients. In both arms, 96-97% of the patients had negative sentinel lymph node biopsy. The median time interval between surgery and radiotherapy was 57d in WBI vs 62d in APBI. WBI schedules consisted of 50 Gy in 25 fr+16 Gy (n = 212) or 40 Gy in 15 fr (n = 156) or 42.5 Gy in 16 fr (n = 120). APBI arm consisted of 38.5 Gy or 40 Gy in 10 fr, 2 fr/day. Overall, 94 patients from the APBI arm finally received standard WBI. For statistical considerations, SHARE trial, sponsored by UNICANCER (NCT01247233) is a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing APBI versus WBI in terms of local control as primary objective. Secondary endpoints were severe toxicity (NCI-CTCAE v4 grade ≥ 2), and cosmetic results. For both outcomes, we estimated the cumulative incidences (CI) using Kalbfleish and Prentice method, considering disease relapse, secondary cancer or death as competing events. Treatment effect (APBI vs WBI) was estimated by cause-specific Hazard Ratios (cs-HR) from Cox models. Median follow-up was 5.8y (range, 0.13-9.5). The number of deaths was 27, and the number of local relapses was 8. Among the 978 patients, 582 and 396 had finally WBI and APBI, respectively. The rates of post-operative hematoma, edema and infection were low: 8-9%, 2%, 3-2%, respectively. When considering any type of severe toxicity, we observed a significant reduction rate in APBI compared to WBI: cs-HR = 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.88); p = 0.001, and 3-year CI of severe toxicity at 45% in WBI vs 36% in APBI arm. The difference was also in favor of APBI when considering breast skin toxicity alone: cs-HR = 0.55 (0.44-0.70), p<0.001 and 3-year CI at 36% in WBI vs 21% in APBI arm. Conversely, for breast other toxicities, WBI was found less toxic than APBI with a 3-year CI of 8% vs 15%, respectively. When considering cosmetic results, we observed no significant difference between the two arms in both evaluations by physicians and patients. Historically SHARE is the first APBI trial that included hypofractionated schedules in the standard arm. We report increased risk of severe toxicity and skin breast toxicity in standard arm as compared with APBI arm without any difference in terms of cosmetic results. Longer follow-up is needed.