Reshma Jagsi1, Kent A Griffith2, Thomas P Boike3, Eleanor Walker4, Teamour Nurushev5, Inga S Grills6, Jean M Moran7, Mary Feng7, James Hayman7, Lori J Pierce7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor2Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, Ann Arbor. 2. Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor. 3. McLaren Northern Michigan, Petoskey. 4. Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 5. 21st Century Oncology, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Randomized trials have established the long-term safety and efficacy of hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy, but little is known about the acute toxic effects experienced by patients treated with hypofractionation as compared with conventional fractionation, particularly in real-world settings and from the patient's own perspective. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively collected data on acute toxic effects and patient-reported outcomes in a cohort treated with varying radiation fractionation schemes in practices collaborating in the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared toxic effects in patients receiving hypofractionation (HF) vs conventional fractionation (CF) during treatment (through 7 days after treatment) and in follow-up (posttreatment days 8-210), after adjustment for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. The MROQC includes academic and community radiation oncology practices across Michigan. All 2604 patients who received adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy after lumpectomy for unilateral breast cancer at MROQC participating sites from October 2011 through June 2014 were registered; we analyzed 2309 for whom there was a comprehensive physician toxicity evaluation within 1 week of completion of radiotherapy and at least 1 weekly toxicity evaluation during treatment. EXPOSURES: Hypofractionation vs CF. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Physicians reported dermatitis, pain, fatigue, and other common toxic effects associated with breast radiotherapy at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and in follow-up. Patients who consented also rated their own experiences, including breast pain, fatigue, and being bothered by symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 2309 evaluable patients, 578 received HF. During treatment, after adjustment for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment factors, patients receiving CF had significantly higher maximum physician-assessed skin reaction (moist desquamation, 28.5% vs 6.6%, P < .001; grade ≥2 dermatitis, 62.6% vs 27.4%, P < .001), self-reported pain (moderate/severe pain, 41.1% vs 24.2%, P = .003), burning/stinging bother (often/always, 38.7% vs 15.7%, P = .002), hurting bother (33.5% vs 16.0%, P = .001), swelling bother (29.6% vs 15.7%, P = .03), and fatigue (29.7% vs 18.9%, P = .02) but slightly greater absence of skin induration in follow-up (84.5% vs 81.2%, P = .02). No significant differences were observed in any other measured outcomes during follow-up extending through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hypofractionation not only improves convenience but also may reduce acute pain, fatigue, and the extent to which patients are bothered by dermatitis in patients with breast cancer undergoing whole-breast radiotherapy.
IMPORTANCE: Randomized trials have established the long-term safety and efficacy of hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy, but little is known about the acute toxic effects experienced by patients treated with hypofractionation as compared with conventional fractionation, particularly in real-world settings and from the patient's own perspective. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively collected data on acute toxic effects and patient-reported outcomes in a cohort treated with varying radiation fractionation schemes in practices collaborating in the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared toxic effects in patients receiving hypofractionation (HF) vs conventional fractionation (CF) during treatment (through 7 days after treatment) and in follow-up (posttreatment days 8-210), after adjustment for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. The MROQC includes academic and community radiation oncology practices across Michigan. All 2604 patients who received adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy after lumpectomy for unilateral breast cancer at MROQC participating sites from October 2011 through June 2014 were registered; we analyzed 2309 for whom there was a comprehensive physician toxicity evaluation within 1 week of completion of radiotherapy and at least 1 weekly toxicity evaluation during treatment. EXPOSURES: Hypofractionation vs CF. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Physicians reported dermatitis, pain, fatigue, and other common toxic effects associated with breast radiotherapy at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and in follow-up. Patients who consented also rated their own experiences, including breast pain, fatigue, and being bothered by symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 2309 evaluable patients, 578 received HF. During treatment, after adjustment for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment factors, patients receiving CF had significantly higher maximum physician-assessed skin reaction (moist desquamation, 28.5% vs 6.6%, P < .001; grade ≥2 dermatitis, 62.6% vs 27.4%, P < .001), self-reported pain (moderate/severe pain, 41.1% vs 24.2%, P = .003), burning/stinging bother (often/always, 38.7% vs 15.7%, P = .002), hurting bother (33.5% vs 16.0%, P = .001), swelling bother (29.6% vs 15.7%, P = .03), and fatigue (29.7% vs 18.9%, P = .02) but slightly greater absence of skin induration in follow-up (84.5% vs 81.2%, P = .02). No significant differences were observed in any other measured outcomes during follow-up extending through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hypofractionation not only improves convenience but also may reduce acute pain, fatigue, and the extent to which patients are bothered by dermatitis in patients with breast cancer undergoing whole-breast radiotherapy.
Authors: Dhaval J Shah; Ram Hirpara; Corrie L Poelman; Adrianne Woods; Laura K Hummers; Fredrick M Wigley; Jean L Wright; Arti Parekh; Virginia D Steen; Robyn T Domsic; Ami A Shah Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Ronica Nanda; David Boulware; Rachid Baz; Diane Portman; H Michael Yu; Heather Jim; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Pierfrancesco Franco; Giuseppe Carlo Iorio; Sara Bartoncini; Mario Airoldi; Corrado De Sanctis; Isabella Castellano; Umberto Ricardi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Cameron W Swanick; Xiudong Lei; Simona F Shaitelman; Pamela J Schlembach; Elizabeth S Bloom; Michelle C Fingeret; Eric A Strom; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Michael C Stauder; Tomas Dvorak; Alastair M Thompson; Thomas A Buchholz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yasmin Hasan; Joseph Waller; Katharine Yao; Steven J Chmura; Dezheng Huo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Simona F Shaitelman; Xiudong Lei; Alastair Thompson; Pamela Schlembach; Elizabeth S Bloom; Isidora Y Arzu; Daniel Buchholz; Gregory Chronowski; Tomas Dvorak; Emily Grade; Karen Hoffman; George Perkins; Valerie K Reed; Shalin J Shah; Michael C Stauder; Eric A Strom; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Diana N Amaya; Yu Shen; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara R Alcorn; Lindsey Sloan; Todd R McNutt; Susan F Stinson; Fariba Asrari; Victoria J Croog; Bethlehem Floreza; Arcelia Weaver; Jean L Wright Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-02-21