 |  | 

These findings were published November 2008 by the Cancer
Media Service of the European School of Oncology:
Study shows women with breast cancer treated with
radiotherapy using tangential fields have
increased risk of developing cancer in the other breast
Women with breast cancer treated with
radiotherapy using tangential fields – where
radiation is directed at an angle to the breast -
after lumpectomy show increased risk of breast
cancer in the other breast, with an even higher
risk in younger women and in those with family
members who have had breast cancer, warns a study.
Women who have had breast cancer have a three to
four times higher risk of developing a new
primary cancer in their other breast
(contralateral breast cancer), compared with the
risk of a first primary breast cancer in other
women. This increased risk could be due to a
common cause for the tumours in both breasts,
such as a genetic tendency to breast cancer or hormonal risk factors.
Researchers have suggested that the treatment of
the first breast cancer may also play a role in
increasing the risk of a new cancer in the other
breast. One study estimated that around one in
ten of all contralateral breast cancers in women
having traditional radiotherapy for their initial
breast cancer could be attributed to their
radiation treatment. But few research studies
have looked at whether modern radiotherapy and
chemotherapy affect this risk, and the results
have been inconclusive. So a large study was
carried out to assess the long-term risk of
contralateral breast cancer in young women,
focusing on the effects of the radiation dose
they were given, their chemotherapy, and their
family history of breast cancer.
The study included 7,221 predominantly young
women treated for breast cancer at two centres in
the Netherlands, the Netherlands Cancer
Institute, Amsterdam, and the Erasmus Medical
Center, Rotterdam, between 1970 and 1986. The
researchers searched the patients’ records for
information on the treatment they were given for
their primary cancers, including surgery,
radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal
treatment; whether they suffered recurrent
cancer; and their family history of breast cancer.
Results showed that radiotherapy did not
significantly increase the risk of contralateral
breast cancer overall. However, the risk
associated with radiotherapy was higher in
younger women. Those who were younger than 35
years at first treatment had nearly twice the
risk of breast cancer associated with
radiotherapy occurring in the other breast
(hazard ratio [HR] 1.78; 95% confidence interval
[CI], 0.85 to 3.72) compared to women over 45
years (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.45).
The risk of contralateral breast cancer also
depended on the type of radiotherapy used, which
was determined by the location and stage of the
primary breast cancer. Women treated before the
age of 45 years with radiotherapy after
lumpectomy (surgery to remove a small area of the
breast) showed a 1.5-fold increased risk of
breast cancer in their other breast compared with
those who had radiotherapy after mastectomy (removal of the entire breast).
The researchers, led by Maartje Hooning, from the
Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam,
explained why this difference might have
occurred: “Postmastectomy radiotherapy using
direct electron fields led to a significantly
lower radiation exposure to the contralateral
breast than postlumpectomy radiotherapy using tangential fields.”
They noted that radiation techniques for treating
breast cancer have improved over the last few
years. Strategies to improve the angle of
delivery of radiation to the breast and the
introduction of intensity-modulated radiotherapy
have led to a lower dose of radiation to the
other breast. “These policies will have the
impact of reducing, though not eliminating, any
potential increased risk of contralateral breast
cancer owing to radiotherapy,” they suggested.
The joint effects of postlumpectomy radiotherapy
and a strong family history for breast cancer on
the risk of contralateral breast cancer were
greater than expected when individual risks were
summed up (HR 3.52; 95% CI, 2.07 to 6.02;
pdeparture from additivity = 0.043).
Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate,
and fluorouracil) was associated with a
nonsignificantly decreased risk of contralateral
breast cancer in the first five years of
follow-up but did not reduce the risk in
subsequent years. “Our data suggest that
chemotherapy primarily affects contralateral
breast cancer risk by eradicating pre-existing
tumour cells in the contralateral breast,” the researchers suggested.
“Young patients with breast cancer irradiated
with breast tangentials experience increased risk
of contralateral breast cancer, especially in
those with a positive family history of breast
cancer,” concluded Dr Hooning and her
co-researchers. “This finding should be taken
into account when advising breast radiation with
tangential fields to young patients with breast cancer.
Commenting on the study, Jacques Bernier, from
the Department of Radio-Oncology, Genolier Swiss
Medical Network, Genolier and Geneva,
Switzerland, said: “This is the first time the
potential relationship between radiotherapy and
the risk of contralateral breast cancer has been
investigated with so much precise data on
irradiation doses to the contralateral breast.”
He explained how it has built on what was
suspected previously: “The increased risk of
contralateral breast cancer in young patients
with a positive family history of breast cancer
had been alluded to in the past but never really
quantified, at least never with the degree of
precision reached in this study.”
Dr Bernier explained that tangential fields
(oblique anterior and oblique posterior) are used
after both mastectomy and breast conserving
surgery. “The dose delivered to the contralateral
breast is a function of the field angles and
extension of the irradiation to the midline in
the case, for instance, of tumours located in one
of the inner quadrants or when the post-surgical
scar extends to the sternum. Thus, the dose to
the contralateral breast is conditioned more by
the anatomy of the patient or post-surgical
conditions than by the type of surgery.”
He considered that the study was well designed,
with the main limitation being that it covered a
time window (1970-1986) when technology was not
very sophisticated and radiotherapy doses
delivered to the contralateral breast were higher
than with current treatment, using conformal
therapy with doses more focused to the target
volume. “The risk levels calculated in this paper
might overestimate those linked with modern radiotherapy,” he considered.
In terms of the implications of the study for the
clinical management of patients, Dr Bernier said:
“Obviously, the indication for post-operative
radiotherapy should not be questioned even in
patients with the highest risk of contralateral
breast cancer, except in very specific cases with
particular breast or chest wall anatomy. But it
is clear that, in this group of patients, the
irradiation plan should be set up with more
caution as regards the level of dose delivered to the contralateral breast.
“In young patients with a positive family of
breast cancer, the treatment plan should take
into account their higher potential risk of
contralateral breast cancer. Further efforts
should be made to increase the conformality of
radiotherapy techniques,” Dr Bernier concluded.
Reference
Hooning MJ, Aleman BMP, Hauptmann M et al. Roles
of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in the
Development of Contralateral Breast Cancer.
Published online in the Journal of Clinical
Oncology http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/doi/10.1200/JCO.2007.16.0192
|
Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training.
This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics.
Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM. |
|