Sriram Venigalla1, David M Guttmann2, Varsha Jain2, Sonam Sharma3, Gary M Freedman2, Jacob E Shabason2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: sriram.venigalla@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acceptance of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating breast cancer in the breast conservation therapy setting has stimulated interest in hypofractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). We assessed national trends and patterns of utilization of hypofractionated PMRT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women 18 years of age or older with breast cancer treated with mastectomy and PMRT to the chest wall with or without regional lymph nodes from 2004 to 2014 were identified from the National Cancer Database. A standard fractionation cohort was defined as patients receiving 180 to 200 cGy per fraction to a total dose of 4500 to 7000 cGy over 5 to 7 weeks, and a hypofractionation cohort was defined as those receiving 250 to 400 cGy per fraction to a total dose of 3000 to 6000 cGy over 2 to 5 weeks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with hypofractionated PMRT use. RESULTS: We identified 113,981 patients who met study criteria. Overall, hypofractionated PMRT use was low (1.1%) although utilization increased over time (P ≤ .001). Older age, greater comorbidity, further distance from treatment facility, treatment at academic facilities, less extensive disease, and recent treatment year were statistically significant predictors of hypofractionation use compared with standard fractionation. Conversely, breast reconstruction and receipt of chemotherapy were negative predictors. CONCLUSION: Because of the absence of high-level evidence to support its use, hypofractionated PMRT was uncommonly utilized in the United States from 2004 to 2014, although a small increase in use was noted over time. Findings from this study might be useful in designing future studies, and might serve as a baseline for evaluation of future changes in practice patterns.
BACKGROUND: The acceptance of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating breast cancer in the breast conservation therapy setting has stimulated interest in hypofractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). We assessed national trends and patterns of utilization of hypofractionated PMRT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women 18 years of age or older with breast cancer treated with mastectomy and PMRT to the chest wall with or without regional lymph nodes from 2004 to 2014 were identified from the National Cancer Database. A standard fractionation cohort was defined as patients receiving 180 to 200 cGy per fraction to a total dose of 4500 to 7000 cGy over 5 to 7 weeks, and a hypofractionation cohort was defined as those receiving 250 to 400 cGy per fraction to a total dose of 3000 to 6000 cGy over 2 to 5 weeks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with hypofractionated PMRT use. RESULTS: We identified 113,981 patients who met study criteria. Overall, hypofractionated PMRT use was low (1.1%) although utilization increased over time (P ≤ .001). Older age, greater comorbidity, further distance from treatment facility, treatment at academic facilities, less extensive disease, and recent treatment year were statistically significant predictors of hypofractionation use compared with standard fractionation. Conversely, breast reconstruction and receipt of chemotherapy were negative predictors. CONCLUSION: Because of the absence of high-level evidence to support its use, hypofractionated PMRT was uncommonly utilized in the United States from 2004 to 2014, although a small increase in use was noted over time. Findings from this study might be useful in designing future studies, and might serve as a baseline for evaluation of future changes in practice patterns.
Authors: Elyn H Wang; Sarah S Mougalian; Pamela R Soulos; Charles E Rutter; Suzanne B Evans; Bruce G Haffty; Cary P Gross; James B Yu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Baillet; M Housset; C Maylin; G Boisserie; R Bettahar; S Delanian; F Habib Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Fang Chen; Timothy S K Hui; Lingyu Ma; Yaqing Nong; Ying Han; Haiman Jing; Eric K W Lee; Zhiyuan Xu; Pingfu Fu; Amy Tien Yee Chang; Victor Hsue; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Benjamin A Y Cher; Michael Dykstra; Chang Wang; Matthew Schipper; James A Hayman; Charles S Mayo; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-22