PURPOSE: In patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, randomized trials have found little difference in local control and survival outcomes between patients treated with conventionally fractionated (CF-) whole breast irradiation (WBI) and those receiving hypofractionated (HF)-WBI. However, it remains controversial whether these results apply to all subgroups of patients. We therefore developed an evidence-based guideline to provide direction for clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A task force authorized by the American Society for Radiation Oncology weighed evidence from a systematic literature review and produced the recommendations contained herein. RESULTS: The majority of patients in randomized trials were aged 50 years or older, had disease Stage pT1-2 pN0, did not receive chemotherapy, and were treated with a radiation dose homogeneity within ±7% in the central axis plane. Such patients experienced equivalent outcomes with either HF-WBI or CF-WBI. Patients not meeting these criteria were relatively underrepresented, and few of the trials reported subgroup analyses. For patients not receiving a radiation boost, the task force favored a dose schedule of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions when HF-WBI is planned. The task force also recommended that the heart should be excluded from the primary treatment fields (when HF-WBI is used) due to lingering uncertainty regarding late effects of HF-WBI on cardiac function. The task force could not agree on the appropriateness of a tumor bed boost in patients treated with HF-WBI. CONCLUSION: Data were sufficient to support the use of HF-WBI for patients with early-stage breast cancer who met all the aforementioned criteria. For other patients, the task force could not reach agreement either for or against the use of HF-WBI, which nevertheless should not be interpreted as a contraindication to its use.
PURPOSE: In patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, randomized trials have found little difference in local control and survival outcomes between patients treated with conventionally fractionated (CF-) whole breast irradiation (WBI) and those receiving hypofractionated (HF)-WBI. However, it remains controversial whether these results apply to all subgroups of patients. We therefore developed an evidence-based guideline to provide direction for clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A task force authorized by the American Society for Radiation Oncology weighed evidence from a systematic literature review and produced the recommendations contained herein. RESULTS: The majority of patients in randomized trials were aged 50 years or older, had disease Stage pT1-2 pN0, did not receive chemotherapy, and were treated with a radiation dose homogeneity within ±7% in the central axis plane. Such patients experienced equivalent outcomes with either HF-WBI or CF-WBI. Patients not meeting these criteria were relatively underrepresented, and few of the trials reported subgroup analyses. For patients not receiving a radiation boost, the task force favored a dose schedule of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions when HF-WBI is planned. The task force also recommended that the heart should be excluded from the primary treatment fields (when HF-WBI is used) due to lingering uncertainty regarding late effects of HF-WBI on cardiac function. The task force could not agree on the appropriateness of a tumor bed boost in patients treated with HF-WBI. CONCLUSION: Data were sufficient to support the use of HF-WBI for patients with early-stage breast cancer who met all the aforementioned criteria. For other patients, the task force could not reach agreement either for or against the use of HF-WBI, which nevertheless should not be interpreted as a contraindication to its use.
Authors: Pierfrancesco Franco; Domenico Cante; Piera Sciacero; Giuseppe Girelli; Maria Rosa La Porta; Umberto Ricardi Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Julie B Schnur; Joshua Graff Zivin; David M K Mattson; Sheryl Green; Lina H Jandorf; A Gabriella Wernicke; Guy H Montgomery Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Ezra Fishman; Winnie Chi; Robert P Zimmerman; Atul Gupta; John J Barron; Gosia Sylwestrzak; Justin E Bekelman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Sriram Venigalla; David M Guttmann; Varsha Jain; Sonam Sharma; Gary M Freedman; Jacob E Shabason Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.225