Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718094›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2022

Disease Control After Hypofractionation Versus Conventional Fractionation for Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness in a Large Observational Cohort.

Reshma Jagsi, Kent A Griffith, Frank A Vicini, Eyad Abu-Isa, Derek Bergsma, Amit Bhatt, Joshua T Dilworth, Michael Dominello, Stephen Franklin, David K Heimburger and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

17 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rjagsi@med.umich.edu.
Kent A GriffithDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Frank A Vicini21st Century Oncology, Michigan Healthcare Professionals, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Eyad Abu-IsaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan.
Derek BergsmaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Mercy Health Radiation Oncology, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Amit BhattKarmanos Cancer Institute at McLaren Greater Lansing, Lansing, Michigan.
Joshua T DilworthBeaumont Radiation Oncology, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Michael DominelloDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; Karmanos Cancer Center, Detroit, Michigan.
Stephen FranklinKarmanos Cancer Institute at McLaren Macomb, Ted B. Wahby Cancer Center, Mount Clemens, Michigan.
David K HeimburgerMunson Medical Center, Traverse City, Michigan.
Isaac KaufmanKarmanos Cancer Institute at McLaren Northern, Petosky, Michigan.
Paul G KocherilGenesys Hurley Cancer Institute, Flint, Michigan.
Annette E KretzlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Jackson, Michigan.
Peter PaximadisLakeland Radiation Oncology, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Jeffrey D RadawskiWest Michigan Cancer Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Eleanor M WalkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Jackson, Michigan.
Lori PierceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USHenry Ford Health System · USGenesys Hurley Cancer Institute · USLakeland Health · USMcLaren Greater Lansing · USMcLaren Macomb · USMichigan Healthcare Professionals · USMunson Medical Center · USThe Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · USWayne State University · USWest Michigan Cancer Center · US

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI THEODORE S LAWRENCE · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQuestions remain about whether moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation is appropriate for patients with triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the prospective database of a multicenter, collaborative quality improvement consortium, we identified patients with node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer who received whole-breast irradiation with either moderate hypofractionation or conventional fractionation. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), we compared outcomes using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimation method with Cox regression models estimating the hazard ratio for time-to-event endpoints between groups.

resultsThe sample included 538 patients treated at 18 centers in 1 state in the United States, of whom 307 received conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation and 231 received moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. The median follow-up time was 5.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-5.15 years). The 5-year IPTW estimates for freedom from local recurrence were 93.6% (95% CI, 87.8%-96.7%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 94.4% (95% CI, 90.3%-96.8%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.51-2.17; P = .89). The 5-year IPTW estimates for recurrence-free survival were 87.8% (95% CI, 81.0%-92.4%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 88.4% (95% CI 83.2%-92.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.62-1.67; P = .95). The 5-year IPTW estimates for overall survival were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.0%-98.5%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 93.4% (95% CI, 88.7%-96.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.30-1.42; P = .28).

conclusionsAnalysis of outcomes in this large observational cohort of patients with triple-negative, node-negative breast cancer treated with whole-breast irradiation revealed no differences by dose fractionation. This adds evidence to support the use of moderate hypofractionation in patients with triple-negative disease.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesDose Fractionation, RadiationFemaleHumansRadiation Dose HypofractionationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34718094
PMCPMC9020566
OpenAlexW3209509156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.