ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Patient-reported outcomes for patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A single-center registry experience.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety analysis of hypofractionated and conventional fractionated radiotherapy in postoperative breast cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Quality of Life Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With or Without Radiation Therapy.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We present Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) for patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer with curative intent. We describe the frequency and severity of PRO-CTCAE and analyze them with respect to dose fractionation. Methods: Patients were included in this study if they were treated with curative intent for breast cancer and enrolled on a prospective registry. Patients must have completed at least one baseline and one post-radiation survey that addressed PRO-CTCAE. For univariate and multivariate analysis, categorical variables were analyzed by Fisher's exact test and continuous variables by Wilcoxon rank sum test. PRO-CTCAE items graded ≥2 and ≥3 were analyzed between patients who received hypofractionation (HF) versus standard conventional fractionation (CF) therapy by the Chi-square test. Results: Three hundred thirty-one patients met inclusion criteria. Pathologic tumor stage was T1-T2 in 309 (94%) patients. Eighty-seven (29%) patients were node positive. Two hundred forty-seven patients (75%) experienced any PRO-CTCAE grade ≥2, and 92 (28%) patients experienced any PRO-CTCAE grade ≥3. CF was found to be associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 skin toxicity, swallowing, and nausea (all p < 0.01). HF (OR 0.48, p < 0.01) was significant in the multivariate model for decreased risk of any occurrence of PRO-CTCAE ≥3. Conclusions: Our study reports one of the first clinical experiences utilizing multiple PRO-CTCAE items for patients with breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy with curative intent. Compared with CF, HF was associated with a significant decrease in any PRO-CTCAE ≥3 after multivariate analysis.
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.