Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35443729›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022

Favorable safety profile of moderate hypofractionated over normofractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer patients: a multicentric prospective real-life data farming analysis.

Irfane Issoufaly, Claire Petit, Sébastien Guihard, Rémi Eugène, Loic Jung, Jean Baptiste Clavier, Stéphanie Servagi Vernat, Sara Bellefqih, Benjamin Verret, Naïma Bonnet and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Irfane IssoufalyDepartment of Radiotherapy, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Claire PetitDepartment of Radiotherapy, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Sébastien GuihardRadiotherapy, Paul Strauss, Strasbourg, France.
Rémi EugèneRadiotherapy, Elekta, Paris, France.
Loic JungRadiotherapy, Paul Strauss, Strasbourg, France.
Jean Baptiste ClavierRadiotherapy, Paul Strauss, Strasbourg, France.
Stéphanie Servagi VernatRadiotherapy, Jean Godinot, Reims, France.
Sara BellefqihRadiotherapy, Jean Godinot, Reims, France.
Benjamin VerretDepartment of Radiotherapy, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Naïma BonnetUnicancer Radiation and Oncology Group, Paris, France.
Éric DeutschDepartment of Radiotherapy, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Sofia RiveraDepartment of Radiotherapy, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, 94805, Villejuif, France. sofia.rivera@gustaveroussy.fr.
Université Paris-Saclay · FRInstitut Jean Godinot · FRInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRLaboratoire d'études sur les monothéismes · FRUniCancer Group · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModerately hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (HFRT) has proven to be as safe and efficient as normofractionated radiotherapy (NFRT) in randomized trials resulting in major changes in clinical practice. Toxicity rates observed in selected clinical trial patients may differ from those observed in unselected patients with possible comorbidities and frailty in real-life. This study aimed to examine the influence of HFRT versus NFRT on acute toxicity and identify risks factors of dermatitis in real-life patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsProspective data from breast cancer patients, treated with locoregional radiotherapy were collected between November 2015 and February 2020 in 3 comprehensive cancer centers. Through a systematic data-farming strategy, acute toxicity evaluation forms (CTCAEv4.0) were prospectively completed and extracted electronically. The results from each center were then anonymously merged into a single database for analysis. A Chi-2 test was used to compare HFRT and NFRT. Furthermore, risk factors of dermatitis were identified in a sub-study (622 patients) by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

resultsIn total, 3518 T0-4 N0-3 mostly M0 (85.8%) breast cancer patients with a median age of 60.7 (24-96 years old) were analyzed. Acute grade 2-3 dermatitis, grade 1-3 breast oedema, and grade 1-2 hyperpigmentation were less frequent with HFRT versus NFRT: respectively 8.9% versus 35.1% (Chi-2 = 373.7; p < 0.001), 29.0% versus 37.0% (Chi-2 = 23.1; p < 0.001) and 27.0% versus 55.8% (Chi-2 = 279.2; p < 0.001). Fewer patients experienced pain with HFRT versus NFRT: 33.4% versus 53.7% respectively (Chi-2 = 137.1; p < 0.001). Factors such as high BMI (OR = 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28-4.26], p < 0.01), large breast size (OR = 1.88 [95% CI, 1.07-3.28], p < 0.01) and lumpectomy over mastectomy (OR = 0.52 [95% CI, 0.27-0.97], p < 0.05) were associated with greater risk factors of grade 2-3 dermatitis in multivariate analysis regardless of NFRT or HFRT.

conclusionThe results of this study suggests that breast HFRT may be a better option even for patients with a high BMI or large breast size. Acute toxicity was low to mild, and lower with HFRT compared to NFRT. Results from real-life data were robust, and support the use of HFRT beyond randomized study populations. Long-term real-life data awaits further investigation.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDermatitisAgedAged, 80 and overAgricultureBreastFemaleHumansHypertrophyMastectomyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesAcute toxicityBreast cancerData-farmingHypofractionationRadiotherapyReal-life data

Identifiers

PMID35443729
PMCPMC9019802
OpenAlexW4225757457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.