Shuhong Zhao1, Yi Liu2, Fengxian Huang1, Xin Chen1, Ximing Cao1, Jiao Yu1. 1. Department of Radiation, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, China. 2. Department of Oncology, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an 710068, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in patients with early-stage breast cancer. In addition, cosmetic and delayed toxic effects in the breast were also investigated. METHODS: A total of 107 female patients were recruited and randomly classified into the hypofractionated radiotherapy (HF) group (53 participants) and the conventional fractioned radiotherapy (CF) group (54 participants). The HF group was subjected to the following treatments: whole-breast irradiation (± irradiation of the infra-supraclavicular region) at 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + tumor bed boost at 7.98 Gy/3 fractions. The CF group received the following treatments: whole-breast irradiation (± irradiation of the infra-supraclavicular region) at 50 Gy/25 fractions + tumor bed boost at 10 Gy/5 fractions. RESULTS: The 10-year local recurrence (LR) rate, tumor-specific survival rate, disease-free survival rate, and overall survival rate of the HF and CF groups were 9.6% vs. 7.9% (P=0.712); 88.1% vs. 90.1% (P=0.738); 81.1% vs. 82.9% (P=0.792); and 86.5% vs. 88.5% (P=0.748), respectively. The 10-year rates of patients with good or excellent cosmetic results in the HF and CF groups were 72.7% vs. 67.4% (P=0.581), respectively. The 10-year rates of patients with delayed toxicity-free effects in the skin and the rates of patients with toxicity-free subcutaneous tissues in the HF and CF groups were 70.5% vs. 65.2% (P=0.595) and 52.3% vs. 47.8% (P=0.673), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated and CF showed comparable long-term efficacy, cosmetic effects, and delayed toxic effects. Hence, HF may be used as an alternative to conventional fractionated radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in patients with early-stage breast cancer. In addition, cosmetic and delayed toxic effects in the breast were also investigated. METHODS: A total of 107 female patients were recruited and randomly classified into the hypofractionated radiotherapy (HF) group (53 participants) and the conventional fractioned radiotherapy (CF) group (54 participants). The HF group was subjected to the following treatments: whole-breast irradiation (± irradiation of the infra-supraclavicular region) at 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + tumor bed boost at 7.98 Gy/3 fractions. The CF group received the following treatments: whole-breast irradiation (± irradiation of the infra-supraclavicular region) at 50 Gy/25 fractions + tumor bed boost at 10 Gy/5 fractions. RESULTS: The 10-year local recurrence (LR) rate, tumor-specific survival rate, disease-free survival rate, and overall survival rate of the HF and CF groups were 9.6% vs. 7.9% (P=0.712); 88.1% vs. 90.1% (P=0.738); 81.1% vs. 82.9% (P=0.792); and 86.5% vs. 88.5% (P=0.748), respectively. The 10-year rates of patients with good or excellent cosmetic results in the HF and CF groups were 72.7% vs. 67.4% (P=0.581), respectively. The 10-year rates of patients with delayed toxicity-free effects in the skin and the rates of patients with toxicity-free subcutaneous tissues in the HF and CF groups were 70.5% vs. 65.2% (P=0.595) and 52.3% vs. 47.8% (P=0.673), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated and CF showed comparable long-term efficacy, cosmetic effects, and delayed toxic effects. Hence, HF may be used as an alternative to conventional fractionated radiotherapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Radiotherapy; breast cancer; dose hypofractionation
Authors: Elisa K Chan; Ryan Woods; Mary L McBride; Sean Virani; Alan Nichol; Caroline Speers; Elaine S Wai; Scott Tyldesley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Timothy Whelan; Robert MacKenzie; Jim Julian; Mark Levine; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Barbara Lada; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ethan Laukkanen; Sunil Gulavita; Veronique Benk; Barbara Szechtman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: I Meattini; L Livi; D Franceschini; C Saieva; F Meacci; L Marrazzo; B Bendinelli; V Scotti; C De Luca Cardillo; J Nori; L Sanchez; L Orzalesi; P Bonomo; D Greto; M Bucciolini; S Bianchi; G Biti Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Elisa K Chan; Ryan Woods; Sean Virani; Caroline Speers; Elaine S Wai; Alan Nichol; Mary L McBride; Scott Tyldesley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Michael Green; Samantha J Van Nest; Emilie Soisson; Kathryn Huber; Yixiang Liao; William McBride; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister; Michael C Joiner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Michael Hader; Deniz Pinar Savcigil; Andreas Rosin; Philipp Ponfick; Stephan Gekle; Martin Wadepohl; Sander Bekeschus; Rainer Fietkau; Benjamin Frey; Eberhard Schlücker; Udo S Gaipl Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 6.639