ArticleCureus2022
Comparative Study of Hypo-Fractionated Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer causing death among females worldwide. Radiotherapy after lumpectomy/mastectomy in breast cancer cases is a successful treatment modality taking five weeks to complete. The aim of the present study is to compare the effectiveness of hypo-fractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer patients with conventional radiotherapy with respect to outcome and toxicity.
methodsSixty patients were randomly divided equally into a conventional group, Group A (dose: 50 Gy in 25 fractions), and a hypo-fractionated short-course radiotherapy group, Group B (dose: 40 Gy in 16 fractions). After thorough clinical and laboratory examination of all patients, the disease status was assessed prior to radiotherapy and three and six months after completion of radiotherapy. The cardiopulmonary function was assessed using echocardiography and pulmonary function tests prior to the procedure. The assessment of the development of toxicity (dysphagia, skin, lung, and lymphedema) was done during every clinical visit.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 53.28 ± 9.73 years in Group A, and 55.67 ± 10.41 years in Group B (p=0.82). The right breast was involved in 13 (43.4%) patients in Group A and 14 (46.6%) in Group B, and the left breast was involved n 17 (56.6%) patients in Group A and 16 (53.4%) in Group B (p=0.81). Most of the patients were post-menopausal; 24 (80%) in Group A and 25 (83.4%) in Group B (p=0.91). Eleven (36.6%) patients were of stage T2N1M0 in both groups. However, no statistical difference was observed between the groups in the TNM (tumor, node, and metastasis) staging using the AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) criteria (p=0.26). On comparing the responses in Group A and Group B, no significant difference was observed in either of the groups from immediate post-treatment to the 12-month follow-up period (p=0.53 and p=0.64, respectively).
conclusionHypo-fractionated radiotherapy is as effective as conventional radiotherapy and can be used as an alternative method for treatment following breast cancer surgery.
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.