Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27175630›Full record

ArticleMedicine2016

A Comparative Study of Daily 3-Gy Hypofractionated and 1.8-Gy Conventional Breast Irradiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Sea-Won Lee, Yeon-Joo Kim, Kyung Hwan Shin, Kyubo Kim, Eui Kyu Chie, Wonshik Han, Seock-Ah Im, So-Youn Jung, Keun Seok Lee, Eun Sook Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in association with hypofractionated or normofractionated boost to the tumor bed in early breast cancer: tolerance and efficacy analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sea-Won LeeFrom the Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul (S-WL, KHS, KK, EKC, WH, S-AI); and Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea (Y-JK, S-YJ, KSL, ESL).
Yeon-Joo Kim
Kyung Hwan Shin
Kyubo Kim
Eui Kyu Chie
Wonshik Han
Seock-Ah Im
So-Youn Jung
Keun Seok Lee
Eun Sook Lee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We retrospectively compared accelerated hypofractionation (AHF) with conventional fractionation (CF) in the radiation therapy (RT) for early-stage breast cancer patients.Three hundred seventy-nine early-stage (pT1-2 and pN0-1a) breast cancer patients who received RT with AHF after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were included. These patients were matched with 379 corresponding patients who received BCS and RT with CF at a different center with respect to the year BCS was performed, patient age (±3 years), and cancer stage. The AHF regimen consisted of 39 Gy in 13 fractions to the whole breast and a consecutive boost of 9 to 12 Gy in 3 to 4 fractions to the tumor bed. CF comprised whole-breast irradiation up to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions and a boost of 9 to 14 Gy in 5 to 7 fractions to the tumor bed.The median follow-up period was 75 months (range, 3.8-110.8 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the AHF and CF groups in terms of age distribution, T and N stage, resection margin, and histologic grade. There were 5 ipsilateral breast tumor relapse (IBTR) cases in the AHF group compared with 7 cases in the CF group. Seven and eight locoregional relapse (LRR) cases were observed in the AHF and CF groups, respectively. The 7-year rates of IBTR-free survival, LRR-free survival, and disease-free survival were 98.9%, 98.4%, and 97.1% in the AHF group and 98.1%, 97.9%, and 96.0% in the CF group, respectively (P > 0.05). The incident rates of grade 3 edema, hyperpigmentation, or wet desquamation at the end of RT were higher in the CF group than in the AHF group (16.4% vs 0.2%, respectively; P < 0.01).AHF RT of 39 Gy to the whole breast plus a 9-Gy boost in 16 fractions showed excellent tumor control and tolerable skin toxicity, a finding that is comparable to CF RT in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationRadiation Dose HypofractionationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyDisease-Free SurvivalDose-Response Relationship, RadiationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, Local

Identifiers

PMID27175630
PMCPMC4902472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.