Real World and Public Health Perspectives of Intraoperative Radiotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A...

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) (usually a lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (RT)) has become a standard alternative to radical mastectomy in early-stage breast cancers with equal, if not higher, survival rates. The established standard of the RT component of the BCT had been about six weeks of Monday through Friday external beam RT to the whole breast (WBRT). Recent clinical trials have shown that partial breast radiation therapy (PBRT) to the region surrounding the lumpectomy cavity with shorter courses can result in equal local control, survival, and slightly improved cosmetic outcomes. Intraoperative RT (IORT) wherein RT is administered at the time of operation for BCT to the lumpectomy cavity as a single-fraction RT is also considered PBRT. The advantage of IORT is that weeks of RT are avoided. However, the role of IORT as part of BCT has been controversial. The extreme views go from "I will not recommend to anyone" to "I can recommend to all early-stage favorable patients." These divergent views are due to difficulty in interpreting the clinical trial results. There are two modalities of delivering IORT, namely, the use of low-energy 50 kV beams or electron beams. There are several retrospective, prospective, and two randomized clinical trials comparing IORT versus WBRT. Yet, the opinions are divided. In this paper, we try to bring clarity and consensus from a highly broad-based multidisciplinary team approach. The multidisciplinary team included breast surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, biostatisticians, public health experts, nurse practitioners, and medical oncologists. We show that there is a need to more carefully interpret and differentiate the data based on electron versus low-dose X-ray modalities; the randomized study results have to be extremely carefully dissected from biostatistical points of view; the importance of the involvement of patients and families in the decision making in a very transparent and informed manner needs to be emphasized; and the compromise some women may be willing to accept between 2-4% potential increase in local recurrence (as interpreted by some of the investigators in IORT randomized studies) versus mastectomy. We conclude that, ultimately, the choice should be that of women with detailed facts of the pros and cons of all options being presented to them from the angle of patient/family-focused care. Although the guidelines of various professional societies can be helpful, they are only guidelines. The participation of women in IORT clinical trials is still needed, and as genome-based and omics-based fine-tuning of prognostic fingerprints evolve, the current guidelines need to be revisited. Finally, the use of IORT can help rural, socioeconomically, and infrastructure-deprived populations and geographic regions as the convenience of single-fraction RT and the possibility of breast preservation are likely to encourage more women to choose BCT than mastectomy. This option can also likely lead to more women choosing to get screened for breast cancer, thus enabling the diagnosis of breast cancer at an earlier stage and improving the survival outcomes.