Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2021
Five-Year Longitudinal Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Cosmesis in a Randomized Trial of Conventionally Fractionated Versus Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation.
Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Randomised controlled trials on radiation dose fractionation in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on side effects and cosmesis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety analysis of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy in postoperative breast cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Quantification of breast lymphoedema following conservative breast cancer treatment: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Omission of Breast Surgery Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Optimizing Preventive Adjuvant Linac-Based (OPAL) Radiation: A Phase 2 Trial of Daily Partial Breast Irradiation.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2023Trial
- Breast assessment using next generation handheld ultrasound device based on silicon chips: a pilot study in senology.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Quality of Life Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With or Without Radiation Therapy.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Article
- Cosmetic outcome in patients with early stage breast cancer after accelerated partial breast irradiation using intraoperative or external beam radiotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Accelerated partial breast irradiation: Current evidence and future developments.Cancer innovation · 2024Review
- A Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Schedule with a Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Breast Cancer: Outcomes including Late Toxicity and Health Quality.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Prospective Comparison of Hypofractionated Versus Normofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer: Late Toxicity Results of the Non-Inferiority KOSIMA Trial (ARO2010-3).Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere are limited prospective data on predictors of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after whole-breast irradiation (WBI) plus a boost. We sought to characterize longitudinal PROs and cosmesis in a randomized trial comparing conventionally fractionated (CF) versus hypofractionated (HF) WBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2011 to 2014, women aged ≥40 years with Tis-T2 N0-N1a M0 breast cancer who underwent a lumpectomy with negative margins were randomized to CF-WBI (50 Gray [Gy]/25 fractions plus boost) versus HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fractions plus boost). At baseline (pre-radiation), at 6 months, and yearly thereafter through 5 years, PROs included the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), and Body Image Scale; cosmesis was reported by the treating physician using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group cosmesis values. Multivariable mixed-effects growth curve models evaluated associations of the treatment arm and patient factors with outcomes and tested for relevant interactions with the treatment arm.
resultsA total of 287 patients were randomized, completing a total of 14,801 PRO assessments. The median age was 60 years, 37% of patients had a bra cup size ≥D, 44% were obese, and 30% received chemotherapy. Through 5 years, there were no significant differences in PROs or cosmesis by treatment arm. A bra cup size ≥D was associated with worse BCTOS cosmesis (P < .001), BCTOS pain (P = .001), FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (P = .03), FACT-B Emotional Well-being (P = .03), and Body Image Scale (P = .003) scores. Physician-rated cosmesis was worse in patients who were overweight (P = .02) or obese (P < .001). No patient subsets experienced better PROs or cosmesis with CF-WBI.
conclusionsBoth CF-WBI and HF-WBI confer similar longitudinal PROs and physician-rated cosmesis through 5 years of follow-up, with no relevant subsets that fared better with CF-WBI. This evidence supports broad adoption of hypofractionation with boost, including in patients receiving chemotherapy and in a population with a high prevalence of obesity. The associations of large breast size and obesity with adverse outcomes across multiple domains highlight the opportunity to engage at-risk patients in lifestyle intervention strategies, as well as to consider alternative radiation treatment regimens.
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.