| Literature DB >> 25059887 |
Stefan Janssen, Christoph Glanzmann, Stephanie Lang, Sarah Verlaan, Tino Streller, Doris Wisler, Claudia Linsenmeier, Gabriela Studer1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prospective evaluation of accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients treated with 41.6 Gy in 13 fractions plus boost delivered five times a week. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 03/2009 and 10/2012 98 consecutive patients aged >55 years presenting with breast cancer (invasive cancer: n = 95, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): n = 3) after breast conserving surgery were treated in our institution with the following schedule: 41.6 Gy in 13 fractions 4 times a week and 9 or 12 Gy boost in 3 or 4 fractions (on day 5 each week), cumulative dose: 50.6 Gy in 3.2 weeks or 53.6 Gy in 3.4 weeks, respectively depending on resection status. 56 patients had a T1 tumor, 39 a T2 tumor. N-status was as follows: N0: n = 71, N1: n = 25, N2/3: n = 2. 23 patients (24%) received chemotherapy before RT. A prospectively planned follow-up (FU) visit with objective and subjective assessment of treatment tolerance (questionnaires) was performed 0 and 8 weeks after RT completion, and one, two and four years later, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25059887 PMCID: PMC4112649 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-165
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Literature review: randomized studies with different hypofractionation schedules in breast cancer patients, LR = local recurrence, CTx = chemotherapy, RT ln = periclavicular radiotherapy of lymph nodes, *not randomized
| Whelan “Ontario Trial” (2010) [ | 1234 | 10 | 25×2 = 50 | 6,7% | 10.4% | | | 71.3% | 11% | 0% | 0% |
| | | 16×2,66 = 42,5 (3) | 6,2% | 11.9% | | | 69.8% | | | | |
| Yarnold (2005) | 1410 | 10 | 25×2 = 50 | 12,1% | 28.6% | 13.8% | 12.6% | | 14% | 21% | 75% |
| Owen (2006) [ | | | 13×3,3 = 42,9 (5) | | 40.8% | 14.3% | 20.3% | | | | (7×2 = 14 Gy) |
| | | 13×3,0 = 39 (5) | 9,6% | 20.4% | 8.6% | 10.8% | | | | | |
| | | | | 14,8% | | | | | | | |
| START A (2013) [ | 2236 | 10 | 25×2 = 50 | 6.7% | 27.1% | 7.2% | 13.5% | | 35% | 14% | 61% |
| | | 13×3,2 = 41,6 (5) | 5.6% | 28.2% | 7.1% | 11.8% | | | | (5×2 = 10 Gy) | |
| | | 13×3,0 = 39 (5) | 8.1% | 21.6% | 3.0% | 7.3% | | | | | |
| START B (2013) [ | 2215 | 10 | 25×2 = 50 | 5.2% | 17.4% | 5.8% | 9.0% | | 22% | 7% | 43% |
| | | 15×2,67 = 40 (3) | 3.8% | 14.3% | 4.2% | 5.1% | | | | (5×2 = 10 Gy) | |
| Kim (2013)* [ | 276 | 5 | 13×3 = 39 (3.2) | 1.4% | 3% (1y) 2% (2y) | | 20.4% (1y) 3% (2y) | 83% | 74% | 0% | 100% (3×3 = 9 Gy) |
| Present study* | 98 | 3 | 13×3.2 = 41.6 | 0% | 15% (1y) 7% (2y) | 6% (1y) 22% (2y) | 11% (1y) 0% (2y) | 99% (1y) 97% (2y) | 24% | 3% | 99% (3×3 = 9 Gy) |
Treatment and patient related parameters
| 69 (range: 45-92) | |
| 13 × 3.2 = 41.6 Gy | |
| | |
| no boost | 1 |
| 1 × 3 = 3 Gy | 1 |
| 3 × 3 = 9 Gy | 65 |
| 4 × 3 = 12 Gy | 23 |
| 5 × 2 = 10 Gy | 2 |
| 8 × 2 = 16 Gy | 2 |
| 10 × 2 = 20 Gy | 4 |
| | |
| 3 | |
| N0 | 71 |
| N1 | 25 |
| N2 | 1 |
| N3 | 1 |
| | |
| DCIS | 3 |
| T1 | 56 |
| T2 | 39 |
| T3 | 0 |
| T4 | 0 |
| | |
| G1 | 16 |
| G2 | 45 |
| G3 | 33 |
| Not known | 4 |
| R0 | 11 |
| R1 | 87 |
| | |
| Positive | 85 |
| Negative | 12 |
| Not known | 1 |
| | |
| Positive | 10 |
| Negative | 86 |
| Not known | 2 |
| 23 |
Figure 1A- G: Acute and intermediate toxicity and overall treatment satisfaction. A: Pain assessment (pain scale 1-10). B: Acute skin toxicity. C: Edema. D: Pigmentation. E: Teleangiectasia. F: Fibrosis. G: Overall treatment satisfaction.