The association of internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node radiation technique with clinical outcomes: Results from the EORTC 22922/10925 randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The multicentre EORTC 22922/10925 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00002851) was conducted between 1996 and 2004. The trial evaluated the effect of irradiation of the internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node chains (IM-MS) vs no further radiation therapy (RT) on survival and cause of death in breast cancer stage I-III patients. At 15.7 years of median follow-up, a significant reduction of breast cancer specific mortality (BCSM) and any recurrence, not translating in improved overall survival (OS), and low absolute rates of side effects were found. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the association of RT techniques of IM-MS lymph node irradiation with long-term outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three RT techniques were used for IM-MS: a standard technique using a fixed set-up combining photon/electron beams to the IM and tangential fields to the breast or chest wall vs a standard-modified technique with minor adaptation for beam settings vs a more individualised technique based on individual localisation of the IM. Techniques used were fixed per institution over the duration of the trial. We performed an exploratory and descriptive analysis of the outcomes after 15 years follow-up for the three RT techniques.

RESULTS: Between July 1996 and January 2004, 46 radiation oncology departments from 13 countries accrued 4004 patients. Median follow-up was 15.7 years. The number of patients treated by each technique was 2440 (61%) by standard vs 635 (16%) by standard-modified vs 929 (23%) patients by individualised technique. The absolute improvements of oncological outcomes in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), OS and BCSM with IM-MS RT compared to no IM-MS RT were 6.8%, 4.9% and -5.8% for the individualised technique, vs 1.6%, 2.9% and -4.3% for modified standard and -1.4%, 1.1% and -3% for standard technique, respectively. The increase in 15-year rates of side effects due to IM-MS RT, both scored longitudinally and cross-sectionally, were similar among the techniques.

CONCLUSION: Even though a straightforward comparison by technique is not possible because of variations in baseline characteristics between institutions, our findings suggest that the use of more individualised RT techniques is associated with higher rates of oncological improvements without increased risks for late side effects.