Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617869›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2021

Weekly radiotherapy in elderly breast cancer patients: a comparison between two hypofractionation schedules.

M Zhao, J Sanz, N Rodríguez, P Foro, A Reig, I Membrive, X Li, Y Huang, L Montezuma, A Martínez and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

11 authors.

M ZhaoUniversidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
J SanzUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
N RodríguezUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
P ForoUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
A ReigRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, C/. Del Gas s/n Edificio B, sótano -2, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
I MembriveRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, C/. Del Gas s/n Edificio B, sótano -2, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
X LiUniversidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Y HuangUniversidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
L MontezumaRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, C/. Del Gas s/n Edificio B, sótano -2, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
A MartínezRadiation Oncology Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, C/. Del Gas s/n Edificio B, sótano -2, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
A ManuelUniversidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. malgara@psmar.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0500-9202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWeekly irradiation in breast cancer in elderly patients is a treatment option, whose tolerance may be influenced by the fractionation used. The objective of this study is to compare the tolerance and long-term side effects of two different fractionations. MATERIALS AND

methods47 elderly patients were recruited after conservative or radical treatment that also received irradiation with a dose per fraction of 6.25 Gy or 5 Gy for one session per week, 6 sessions in total. The long-term tolerance results are compared by assessing toxicity using CTCAE version 5.0 scales for dermatitis, telangectasia, fibrosis and pain of the irradiated breast. In addition, objective parameters of skin status (erythema, hyperpigmentation, elasticity and hydration) by a multi-probe MultiSkin Test-Center system were obtained and compared between groups.

resultsAfter an average follow-up of 5 years, all patients were free of disease and with complete local control. A total of 20 patients with 6.25 Gy fractionation and 27 patients with 5 Gy fractionation have been included. Patients treated with lower fractionation had a lower incidence of dermatitis, telangectasia, fibrosis, or local pain. The decrease in elasticity measured by the multi-probe system was smaller with the fractionation of 5 Gy. No differences were observed in the other objective parameters.

conclusionWeekly irradiation with 5 Gy fractionation is better tolerated than with higher fractionation.

Indexed as

Radiation Dose HypofractionationAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsDermatitisFemaleFibrosisHumansMargins of ExcisionPainRadiation InjuriesRadiation ToleranceRadiotherapy DosageTelangiectasisTime FactorsBreast cancerElderly patientsRadiotherapyWeekly hypofractionation

Identifiers

PMID32617869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.