Dataset Information

Comparing Hypofractionated With Conventional Fractionated Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy between hypofractionated and conventional fractionation radiotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before February 2021. At the same time, the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate local recurrence (LR), relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and cosmetic outcomes.

Results

A total of 14 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Four thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to the control group to receive conventional radiotherapy (CFRT); 6,072 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT). The results showed that there was no statistical difference between HFRT and CFRT in LR (HR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.97–1.02, p = 0.476), RFS (HR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.97–1.02, p = 0.485), OS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.97–1.03, p = 0.879), and cosmetic outcomes (RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.95–1.12, p = 0.53). In addition, HFRT showed fewer severe adverse reactions such as acute skin toxicity, induration, breast atrophy, and pain.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that there is no statistical difference between HFRT and CFRT in terms of LR, RFS, OS, and cosmetic outcomes. HFRT reduces the risk of developing toxicity reactions compared to CFRT. HFRT may be a better option for patients with early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

SUBMITTER: Gu L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8518530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the robustness with respect to the positional variations of five planning strategies in free-breathing breast hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for patients after breast-conserving surgery.MethodsTwenty patients who received breast HFRT with 42.72 Gy in 16 fractions were retrospectively analyzed. Five treatment planning strategies were utilized for each patient, including 1) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning (IMRTpure); 2) IMRT planning with skin flash tool extending and filling the fluence outside the skin by 2 cm (IMRTflash); 3) IMRT planning with planning target volume (PTV) extended outside the skin by 2 cm in the computed tomography dataset (IMRTePTV); 4) hybrid planning, i.e., 2 Gy/fraction three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy combined with 0.67 Gy/fraction IMRT (IMRThybrid); and 5) hybrid planning with skin flash (IMRThybrid-flash). All plans were normalized to 95% PTV receiving 100% of the prescription dose. Six additional plans were created with different isocenter shifts for each plan, which were 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, and 10 mm distally in the X (left-right) and Y (anterior-posterior) directions, namely, (X,Y), to assess their robustness, and the corresponding doses were recalculated. Variation of dosimetric parameters with increasing isocenter shift was evaluated.ResultsAll plans were clinically acceptable. In terms of robustness to isocenter shifts, the five planning strategies followed the pattern IMRTePTV, IMRThybrid-flash, IMRTflash, IMRThybrid, and IMRTpure in descending order. V 95% of IMRTePTV maintained at 99.6% ± 0.3% with a (5,5) shift, which further reduced to 98.2% ± 2.0% with a (10,10) shift. IMRThybrid-flash yielded the robustness second to IMRTePTV with less risk from dose hotspots, and the corresponding V 95% maintained >95% up until (5,5).ConclusionConsidering the dosimetric distribution and robustness in breast radiotherapy, IMRTePTV performed best at maintaining high target coverage with increasing isocenter shift, while IMRThybrid-flash would be adequate with positional uncertainty<5 mm.

Project description:Based on randomized evidence, expert guidelines in 2011 endorsed shorter, hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer and permitted hypofractionated WBI for other patients.To examine the uptake and costs of hypofractionated WBI among commercially insured patients in the United States.Retrospective, observational cohort study, using administrative claims data from 14 commercial health care plans covering 7.4% of US adult women in 2013, we classified patients with incident early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and WBI from 2008 and 2013 into 2 cohorts: (1) the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort (n?=?8924) included patients aged 50 years or older without prior chemotherapy or axillary lymph node involvement and (2) the hypofractionation-permitted cohort (n?=?6719) included patients younger than 50 years or those with prior chemotherapy or axillary lymph node involvement.Hypofractionated WBI (3-5 weeks of treatment) vs conventional WBI (5-7 weeks of treatment).Use of hypofractionated and conventional WBI, total and radiotherapy-related health care expenditures, and patient out-of-pocket expenses. Patient and clinical characteristics included year of treatment, age, comorbid disease, prior chemotherapy, axillary lymph node involvement, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, practice setting, and other contextual variables.Hypofractionated WBI increased from 10.6% (95% CI, 8.8%-12.5%) in 2008 to 34.5% (95% CI, 32.2%-36.8%) in 2013 in the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort and from 8.1% (95% CI, 6.0%-10.2%) in 2008 to 21.2% (95% CI, 18.9%-23.6%) in 2013 in the hypofractionation-permitted cohort. Adjusted mean total health care expenditures in the 1 year after diagnosis were $28,747 for hypofractionated and $31,641 for conventional WBI in the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort (difference, $2894; 95% CI, $1610-$4234; P?<?.001) and $64,273 for hypofractionated and $72,860 for conventional WBI in the hypofractionation-permitted cohort (difference, $8587; 95% CI, $5316-$12,017; P?<?.001). Adjusted mean total 1-year patient out-of-pocket expenses were not significantly different between hypofractionated vs conventional WBI in either cohort.Hypofractionated WBI after breast conserving surgery increased among women with early-stage breast cancer in 14 US commercial health care plans between 2008 and 2013. However, only 34.5% of patients with hypofractionation-endorsed and 21.2% with hypofractionation-permitted early-stage breast cancer received hypofractionated WBI in 2013.