New England Journal Medicine: The of
New England Journal Medicine: The of
New England Journal Medicine: The of
journal of medicine
The
established in 1812
a bs t r ac t
BACKGROUND
Most women with breast cancer who undergo breast-conserving surgery receive wholebreast irradiation. We examined whether the addition of regional nodal irradiation
to whole-breast irradiation improved outcomes.
METHODS
RESULTS
Between March 2000 and February 2007, a total of 1832 women were assigned to
the nodal-irradiation group or the control group (916 women in each group). The
median follow-up was 9.5 years. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no significant
between-group difference in survival, with a rate of 82.8% in the nodal-irradiation
group and 81.8% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval
[CI], 0.72 to 1.13; P=0.38). The rates of disease-free survival were 82.0% in the
nodal-irradiation group and 77.0% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95%
CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients in the nodal-irradiation group had higher rates
of grade 2 or greater acute pneumonitis (1.2% vs. 0.2%, P=0.01) and lymphedema
(8.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
307
The
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
Me thods
Patients
Eligible patients were women with invasive carcinoma of the breast who were treated with breastconserving surgery and sentinel-lymph-node biopsy or axillary-node dissection and who had positive
axillary lymph nodes or negative axillary nodes
with high-risk features. Such features were defined as a primary tumor measuring 5 cm or
more or 2 cm or more with fewer than 10 axillary
nodes removed and at least one of the following:
grade 3 histologic categorization, estrogen-receptor (ER) negativity, or lymphovascular invasion.
A level I or II axillary dissection was required for
patients with positive results on sentinel-node biopsy. All patients received adjuvant systemic therapy with chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both.
Patients were excluded if they had T4 tumors
(clinical evidence of direct extension to chest wall
or skin) or N23 nodes (involvement of axillary
nodes that are fixed or of internal mammary
nodes), distant metastasis, or serious nonmalignant disease (e.g., cardiovascular or pulmonary)
308
of
m e dic i n e
Before randomization, patients were stratified according to the number of axillary nodes that were
removed (<10 or 10), the number of positive axillary nodes (0, 1 to 3, or >3), the type of chemotherapy (anthracycline-containing, other, or none),
hormonal therapy (yes or no), and treatment center. With the use of a centralized minimization
procedure, the NCIC Clinical Trials Group office
in Kingston, Ontario, randomly assigned patients
to undergo either whole-breast irradiation plus
regional nodal irradiation (nodal-irradiation group)
or whole-breast irradiation alone (control group).8
For patients in the control group who were
assigned to undergo whole-breast irradiation
alone, the breast was treated with a pair of opposed fields tangentially arranged across the
chest. A dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions was prescribed. Other radiotherapy planning details are
provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
For patients in the nodal-irradiation group,
the intention was to treat the breast at risk and
the ipsilateral internal mammary lymph nodes in
the upper three intercostal spaces, along with
the supraclavicular and axillary lymph nodes. Two
techniques for irradiation of the internal mammary lymph nodes were permitted: a modified
wide-tangent technique and a technique involving
a separate internal-mammary-node field plus tangents. For the modified wide-tangent technique,
the upper tangent fields were widened to include
the internal mammary nodes and narrowed inferiorly to reduce the dose to the underlying lung
and heart. For the technique involving a separate
internal-mammary-node field, a mixed electron
and photon field was angled to match the tangent
fields. CT planning was recommended, with the
309
The
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
WBI+RNI
(N=916)
53 (2684)
54 (2984)
357 (39.0)
360 (39.3)
Characteristic
12 (816)
12 (916)
19 no. (%)
303 (33.1)
294 (32.1)
10 no. (%)
612 (66.8)
622 (67.9)
89 (9.7)
88 (9.6)
447 (48.8)
460 (50.2)
233 (25.4)
209 (22.8)
100 (10.9)
109 (11.9)
>3
47 (5.1)
50 (5.5)
2 cm
501 (54.7)
459 (50.1)
2.15 cm
409 (44.7)
443 (48.4)
6 (0.7)
13 (1.4)
Positive
682 (74.5)
685 (74.8)
Negative
234 (25.5)
231 (25.2)
Positive
549 (59.9)
553 (60.4)
Negative
365 (39.8)
360 (39.3)
540 (59.0)
554 (60.5)
>5 cm
Estrogen-receptor status no. (%)
230 (25.1)
Other
45 (4.9)
47 (5.1)
No chemotherapy
87 (9.5)
85 (9.3)
Aromatase inhibitor
529 (57.8)
521 (56.9)
Tamoxifen
167 (18.2)
172 (18.8)
No endocrine therapy
220 (24.0)
223 (24.3)
317 (34.6)
294 (32.1)
310
of
m e dic i n e
R e sult s
Between March 2000 and February 2007, a total
of 1832 patients were enrolled, with 916 assigned
to each study group. Among patients in the control group who were assigned to receive wholebreast irradiation, 5 received whole-breast and
regional nodal irradiation and 3 received no radiation. Among patients in the nodal-irradiation
group, 19 received whole-breast irradiation alone
and 9 received no radiation. Thirty-five patients
(1.9%) withdrew consent, and 37 (2.0%) were lost
to follow-up (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The median follow-up at the time of this
analysis was 9.5 years.
The characteristics of the patients at baseline
were similar in the two study groups (Table1).
Most patients (99%) had tumors that were categorized as either T1 (measuring 2 cm) or T2
(measuring >2 cm but 5 cm), had one to three
positive axillary nodes (85%), and had ER-positive disease (75%). Most of the patients received
combination chemotherapy (91%) with an anthracycline (86%) or with a taxane (26%), along with
Mortality
WBI
(N=916)
WBI+RNI
(N=916)
62 (6.8)
39 (4.3)
38 (4.1)
33 (3.6)
Regional only
23 (2.5)*
5 (0.5)
1 (0.1)*
1 (0.1)
151 (16.5)
118 (12.9)
118 (12.9)
100 (10.9)
33 (3.6)
18 (2.0)
195 (21.3)
154 (16.8)
175 (19.1)
134 (14.6)
20 (2.2)
20 (2.2)
168 (18.3)
155 (16.9)
Breast cancer
113 (12.3)
93 (10.2)
Other cancer
26 (2.8)
32 (3.5)
Cardiovascular cause
11 (1.2)
11 (1.2)
Other cause
12 (1.3)
8 (0.9)
6 (0.7)
11 (1.2)
Death
Unknown
* Included among regional recurrences were 14 involving axillary nodes, 8 involving supraclavicular nodes, 1 involving infraclavicular nodes, and 1 involving multiple sites. The 10-year cumulative rate of regional recurrence was
2.7%.
Included among regional recurrences were 5 involving axillary nodes and 1 involving multiple sites. The 10-year cumulative rate of regional recurrence was
0.7%.
Table3 summarizes selected potential radiationrelated adverse events of grade 2 or higher. Grade
4 toxic effects were rare, and no grade 5 events
were reported. For acute events (those occurring
3 months after the completion of radiation), significant increases in the rates of radiation dermatitis and pneumonitis were reported in the nodalirradiation group. For delayed events (those
occurring >3 months after the completion of radiation), there were significant increases in the
rates of lymphedema, telangiectasia of the skin,
and subcutaneous fibrosis in the nodal-irradia-
311
The
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
A Overall Survival
of
m e dic i n e
B Disease-free Survival
100
100
WBI+RNI
WBI+RNI
80
WBI
Percentage
Percentage
80
60
40
20
0
WBI
60
40
20
0
10
Years
No. at Risk
879
890
828
841
773
806
602
635
317
331
10
764
800
710
758
553
592
279
297
WBI+RNI
80
60
20
833
861
100
WBI
40
916
915
80
Percentage
WBI
WBI+RNI
WBI+RNI
100
WBI
60
40
20
0
10
Years
10
743
781
579
617
304
318
Years
No. at Risk
WBI
WBI+RNI
No. at Risk
916
916
Percentage
WBI
WBI+RNI
Years
No. at Risk
916
915
836
863
769
806
720
764
563
602
288
307
WBI
WBI+RNI
916
916
851
871
793
823
tion group. No increases in rates of brachial neuropathy, cardiac disease, or secondary cancers
were observed in the nodal-irradiation group, but
the period of follow-up was not sufficiently long
to rule out a difference in the rate of secondary
cancers.
Discussion
In this study, we evaluated the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation in patients treated with breast-conserving
surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy. No improvement was detected with respect to the primary outcome of overall survival. Most of the
study patients had no more than three positive
lymph nodes. It is likely that patients with more
312
nejm.org
Subgroup
WBI WBI+RNI
no. of patients
All patients
Positive nodes
0
1
23
>3
Nodes removed
<10
10
ER status
Negative
Positive
PR status
Negative
Positive
Tumor location
Medial
Central
Lateral
WBI WBI+RNI
WBI WBI+RNI
P Value for
Interaction
916
916
195
154
0.76 (0.610.94)
77.0
82.0
89
447
333
47
88
460
318
50
23
76
80
16
13
68
60
13
0.55 (0.281.09)
0.85 (0.611.18)
0.74 (0.531.04)
0.71 (0.341.48)
72.4
80.9
67.6
60.3
83.7
83.5
74.8
69.8
303
612
294
622
63
132
55
99
0.88 (0.621.27)
0.70 (0.540.90)
74.0
74.2
76.6
81.2
234
682
231
685
78
117
48
106
0.56 (0.390.81)
0.88 (0.681.15)
61.6
78.6
76.2
80.8
365
549
360
553
91
104
55
98
0.57 (0.410.80)
0.91 (0.691.20)
70.5
76.7
81.9
78.5
136
202
578
125
227
564
34
39
122
20
37
97
0.60 (0.351.05)
0.83 (0.531.30)
0.77 (0.591.01)
72.5
78.7
73.0
82.3
82.0
78.4
0.65
0.29
0.04
0.03
0.63
0.25
0.50
WBI+RNI Better
1.0
2.0
4.0
WBI Better
313
314
38
19
NA
Skin
Subcutaneous tissue
Second cancer
NA
NA
Grade 4
Grade 2
93 (10.0)
19 (2.0)
40 (4.3)
14 (1.5)
3 (0.3)
17 (1.8)
42 (4.5)
4 (0.4)
372 (40.1)
2 (0.2)
40 (4.3)
169 (18.2)
NA
34
51
21
16
65
397
11
46
154
Total
NA
11
10
45
16
Grade 3
NA
Grade 4
WBI+RNI (N=893)
98 (11.0)
37 (4.1)
62 (6.9)
21 (2.4)
4 (0.4)
22 (2.5)
75 (8.4)
8 (0.9)
442 (49.5)
11 (1.2)
53 (5.9)
170 (19.0)
Total
0.54
0.01
0.02
0.23
0.72
0.42
0.001
0.26
<0.001
0.01
0.14
0.67
P Value
of
23
13
Grade 3
WBI (N=927)
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
* Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0. Events were considered to be acute if they occurred within 3 months after the completion of radiation and delayed if they occurred more than 3 months after completion. NA denotes not applicable.
P values were calculated by means of Fishers exact test for the between-group comparison of the proportion of patients with an adverse event of grade 2 or higher.
Listed are events that were attributed to radiation.
Grade 2 events were radiographic changes requiring the use of glucocorticoids or diuretics; grade 3 events were radiographic changes and those requiring the use of oxygen.
Cardiac events included left ventricular failure, cardiac ischemia or infarction, supraventricular arrhythmia, and pericardial effusion.
Grade 2 events were moderate lymphedema requiring compression; grade 3 events were severe lymphedema limiting function.
** Neuropathy includes both sensory and motor events.
One patient was reported to have transient grade 4 motor neuropathy in the ipsilateral arm.
Included in this category are two patients with pulmonary fibrosis in the WBI+RNI group.
Included in this category are late radiation changes such as atrophy or telangiectasia.
Excluded from this category are skin and contralateral breast cancers.
2
12
16
Joint
38
Lymphedema
Neuropathy**
Pneumonitis or fibrosis
349
Cardiac
Delayed
Radiation dermatitis
35
Pneumonitis
156
Pain
Grade 2
Fatigue
Acute
Adverse Event
The
m e dic i n e
radiotherapy,16 it supports the hypothesis that further research on the molecular characterization
of the primary tumor may identify patients who
are more likely to benefit from regional nodal
irradiation.17,18 Since the number of node-negative
patients in our trial was relatively small, the application of our results to node-negative patients
is unclear. In addition, at the time of our study,
the size of nodal metastasis was not routinely
measured, so it is difficult to generalize our findings to patients with micrometastases.
Our study was an international effort involving more than 1800 patients from Canada, the
United States, and Australia. Adherence to treatment was high, and relatively few patients were
lost to follow-up. The trial was conducted with
contemporary CT radiotherapy planning to optimize the quality and safety of treatment and with
a rigorous radiotherapy quality-assurance process,
including pretreatment reviews of radiation plans,
to confirm technical protocol compliance. These
approaches potentially contributed to the limited
radiation-related toxicity that was observed. At a
median follow-up of nearly 10 years, there were
no increases in cardiac morbidity and mortality
or in rates of death from other causes associated
with regional nodal irradiation. We observed a
near doubling (absolute increase, 4 percentage
points) in the rate of lymphedema among patients who were treated with regional nodal irradiation, a finding that was consistent with that
of previous trials of locoregional therapy.4,19 The
rate of acute radiation pneumonitis was also significantly higher in the nodal-irradiation group
(absolute increase, 1 percentage point), although
the condition was uncommon in the two groups.
It remains too early to assess the influence of
the additional radiotherapy on heart disease and
second cancers.
When we designed our trial, there was no plan
to adjust the P value for multiple comparisons of
secondary outcomes in the event that the primary
outcome was not significant. Inferences on the
observed treatment effects for secondary outcomes
Appendix
The authors affiliations are as follows: the Department of Oncology, McMaster University, and Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON
(T.J.W., M.N.L.), Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB (I.A.O., P.C.), BC Cancer AgencyVancouver Island Centre, Victoria, BC
(I.A.O.), Queens University and NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON (W.R.P., Y.M., J.-A.W.C., B.E.C.), University of Toronto and
Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto (I.A., K.I.P.), Centre Universitaire de Sherbrooke at Fleurimont Hospital, Sherbrooke, QC
(A.N.), Universit de Montral, Montreal (P.R.), Laval University and LHtel-Dieu de Qubec, Quebec, QC (A.F.), Princess Margaret
Hospital, Toronto (L.M., D.R.M.), Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (S.C.), Nova Scotia Cancer Centre, Halifax (M.C.N), Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre, Sudbury (J.B.), and BC Cancer AgencyVancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC (K.G.) all in
315
Canada; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (B.H.C.); Cancer Research UKMedical Research Council Oxford
Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford, United Kingdom (K.A.V.); Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus (J.R.W.);
and the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor (L.J.P.).
References
1. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, et al.
Five-year results of a randomized clinical
trial comparing total mastectomy and
segmental mastectomy with or without
radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;312:665-73.
2. Veronesi U, Luini A, Del Vecchio M, et
al. Radiotherapy after breast-preserving
surgery in women with localized cancer
of the breast. N Engl J Med 1993;
328:
1587-91.
3. Clark RM, Whelan T, Levine M, et al.
Randomized clinical trial of breast irradiation following lumpectomy and axillary dissection for node-negative breast
cancer: an update. J Natl Cancer Inst
1996;88:1659-64.
4. Ragaz J, Jackson SM, Le N, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in
node-positive premenopausal women with
breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;337:95662.
5. Overgaard M, Hansen PS, Overgaard
J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in
high-risk premenopausal women with
breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b Trial. N Engl J Med
1997;337:949-55.
6. Overgaard M, Jensen MB, Overgaard
J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in
high-risk postmenopausal breast-cancer
patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish
Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG
82c randomised trial. Lancet 1999;
353:
1641-8.
7. Recht A, Siddon RL, Kaplan WD, Andersen JW, Harris JR. Three-dimensional
internal mammary lymphoscintigraphy:
implications for radiation therapy treat-
316