Personalized Radiotherapy for Improved Clinical Benefit

Background: The management of cancer relapse in previously irradiated tissues is a challenging therapeutic issue. The aim of this work was to report our experience with breast reirradiation for locoregionally recurrent breast cancer. Methods: All patients who underwent breast or chest wall in-field reirradiation at the Institut Curie, Paris, France, between 2003 and 2019, were identified. Efficacy outcomes and physician-reported toxicities were retrospectively assessed. Results: A total of 21,372 patients underwent breast irradiation in our institution. Of these, 28 received a second course of radiotherapy to the homolateral breast/chest wall. A total of 18 (64%) patients were treated with a curative intent, and 10 (36%) were treated for palliative purposes. Only one acute and one late grade 3 adverse events were reported. One patient with major cardiovascular risk factors died of myocardial infarction 13 months after left breast reirradiation. The 2-year LRFS, OS, DSS, PFS and MFS were 59%, 79%, 82%, 46% and 75%, respectively, in the whole cohort. The 2-year LRFS (72% vs. 31%, p = 0.02), OS (94% vs. 50%, p < 0.01), DSS (94% vs. 56%, p < 0.01) and PFS (61% vs. 20%, p = 0.02) differed significantly between patients treated with curative or palliative intent but not the MFS (78% vs. 69%, p = 0.77). Among the patients, eight (29%) remained relapse-free 5 years after reirradiation. Conclusion: Breast/chest wall reirradiation appears to be feasible with good disease control, especially in patients treated with a curative intent, and presents acceptable toxicity rates. Full article

Modern advanced radiotherapy techniques have improved the precision and accuracy of radiotherapy delivery, with resulting plans being highly personalised based on individual anatomy. Adaptation for individual tumour biology remains elusive. There is an unmet need for biomarkers of intrinsic radiosensitivity that can predict tumour response to radiation to facilitate individualised decision-making, dosing and treatment planning. Over the last few decades, the use of high throughput molecular biology technologies has led to an explosion of newly discovered cancer biomarkers. Gene expression signatures are now used routinely in clinic to aid decision-making regarding adjuvant systemic therapy. They have great potential as radiotherapy biomarkers. A previous systematic review published in 2015 reported only five studies of signatures evaluated for their ability to predict radiotherapy benefits in clinical cohorts. This updated systematic review encompasses the expanded number of studies reported in the last decade. An additional 27 studies were identified. In total, 22 distinct signatures were recognised (5 pre-2015, 17 post-2015). Seventeen signatures were ‘radiosensitivity’ signatures and five were breast cancer prognostic signatures aiming to identify patients at an increased risk of local recurrence and therefore were more likely to benefit from adjuvant radiation. Most signatures (15/22) had not progressed beyond the discovery phase of development, with no suitable validated clinical-grade assay for application. Very few signatures (4/17 ‘radiosensitivity’ signatures) had undergone any laboratory-based biological validation of their ability to predict tumour radiosensitivity. No signatures have been assessed prospectively in a phase III biomarker-led trial to date and none are recommended for routine use in clinical guidelines. A phase III prospective evaluation is ongoing for two breast cancer prognostic signatures. The most promising radiosensitivity signature remains the radiosensitivity index (RSI), which is used to calculate a genomic adjusted radiation dose (GARD). There is an ongoing phase II prospective biomarker-led study of RSI/GARD in triple negative breast cancer. The results of these trials are eagerly anticipated over the coming years. Future work in this area should focus on (1) robust biological validation; (2) building biobanks alongside large radiotherapy randomised controlled trials with dose variance (to demonstrate an interaction between radiosensitivity signature and dose); (3) a validation of clinical-grade cost-effective assays that are deliverable within current healthcare infrastructure; and (4) an integration with biomarkers of other determinants of radiation response. Full article