BACKGROUND: The authors compared longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and physician-rated cosmesis with conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI) versus hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) within the context of a randomized trial. METHODS:From 2011 to 2014, a total of 287 women with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage II breast cancer were randomized to receive CF-WBI (at a dose of 50 grays in 25 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) or HF-WBI (at a dose of 42.56 grays in 16 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) after breast-conserving surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, and the Body Image Scale and were recorded at baseline and 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 years after radiotherapy. Physician-rated cosmesis was assessed at the same time points. Outcomes by treatment arm were compared at each time point using a 2-sided Student t test. Multivariable mixed effects growth curve models assessed the effects of treatment arm and time on longitudinal outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 287 patients enrolled, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 were randomized toHF-WBI. At 2 years, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Trial Outcome Index score was found to be modestly better in the HF-WBI arm (mean 79.6 vs 75.9 for CF-WBI; P = .02). In multivariable mixed effects models, treatment arm was not found to be associated with longitudinal outcomes after adjusting for time and baseline outcome measures (P≥.14). The linear effect of time was significant for BCTOS measures of functional status (P = .001, improved with time) and breast pain (P = .002, improved with time). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, longitudinal outcomes did not appear to differ by treatment arm. Patient-reported functional and pain outcomes improved over time. These findings are relevant when counseling patients regarding decisions concerning radiotherapy. Cancer 2016.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The authors compared longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and physician-rated cosmesis with conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI) versus hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) within the context of a randomized trial. METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, a total of 287 women with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage II breast cancer were randomized to receive CF-WBI (at a dose of 50 grays in 25 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) or HF-WBI (at a dose of 42.56 grays in 16 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) after breast-conserving surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, and the Body Image Scale and were recorded at baseline and 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 years after radiotherapy. Physician-rated cosmesis was assessed at the same time points. Outcomes by treatment arm were compared at each time point using a 2-sided Student t test. Multivariable mixed effects growth curve models assessed the effects of treatment arm and time on longitudinal outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 287 patients enrolled, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 were randomized to HF-WBI. At 2 years, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Trial Outcome Index score was found to be modestly better in the HF-WBI arm (mean 79.6 vs 75.9 for CF-WBI; P = .02). In multivariable mixed effects models, treatment arm was not found to be associated with longitudinal outcomes after adjusting for time and baseline outcome measures (P≥.14). The linear effect of time was significant for BCTOS measures of functional status (P = .001, improved with time) and breast pain (P = .002, improved with time). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, longitudinal outcomes did not appear to differ by treatment arm. Patient-reported functional and pain outcomes improved over time. These findings are relevant when counseling patients regarding decisions concerning radiotherapy. Cancer 2016.
Authors: Timothy J Whelan; Jean-Philippe Pignol; Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian; Robert MacKenzie; Sameer Parpia; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Julie Bowen; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ken Schneider; Sunil Gulavita; Carolyn Freeman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Thomas P Boike; Eleanor Walker; Teamour Nurushev; Inga S Grills; Jean M Moran; Mary Feng; James Hayman; Lori J Pierce Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Joanne S Haviland; J Roger Owen; John A Dewar; Rajiv K Agrawal; Jane Barrett; Peter J Barrett-Lee; H Jane Dobbs; Penelope Hopwood; Pat A Lawton; Brian J Magee; Judith Mills; Sandra Simmons; Mark A Sydenham; Karen Venables; Judith M Bliss; John R Yarnold Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jay P Reddy; Xiudong Lei; Sheng-Cheng Huang; Krista M Nicklaus; Michelle C Fingeret; Simona F Shaitelman; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Fatima Merchant; Mia K Markey; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Cameron W Swanick; Xiudong Lei; Ying Xu; Yu Shen; Nathan A Goodwin; Grace L Smith; Sharon H Giordano; Kelly K Hunt; Reshma Jagsi; Simona F Shaitelman; Susan K Peterson; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Colleen F Longacre; Hannah T Neprash; Nathan D Shippee; Todd M Tuttle; Beth A Virnig Journal: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Date: 2021-01-11