ArticleMedicine2016
A Comparative Study of Daily 3-Gy Hypofractionated and 1.8-Gy Conventional Breast Irradiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and cosmetic outcomes of radiotherapy modalities in early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety analysis of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy in postoperative breast cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of the Oncological Efficacy Between Intraoperative Radiotherapy With Whole-Breast Irradiation for Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Article
- Radiation Boost After Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy: Does Evidence Support Practice for Close Margin and Altered Fractionation?Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Whole-breast Radiotherapy With Boost for Node-negative Breast Cancer: ConventionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.