Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36947361›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2023

Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in association with hypofractionated or normofractionated boost to the tumor bed in early breast cancer: tolerance and efficacy analysis.

Gabriela Oses, Tanny Daniela Barreto, Carla Cases, Diego Muñoz-Guglielmetti, Gabriela Antelo, Meritxell Mollà

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Gabriela OsesDepartment of Radiation Oncology of Hospital Clinic, Calle Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. oses@clinic.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5843-0909
Tanny Daniela BarretoDepartment of Radiation Oncology of Hospital Clinic, Calle Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Carla CasesDepartment of Radiation Oncology of Hospital Clinic, Calle Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Diego Muñoz-GuglielmettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology of Hospital Clinic, Calle Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Gabriela AnteloDepartment of Radiation Oncology of Hospital Clinic, Calle Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Meritxell MollàDepartment of Radiation Oncology of Hospital Clinic, Calle Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe boost to the tumor bed improves local control in breast cancer and it is an important part of the breast conserving therapy. However, information about the use of a hypofractionated boost is sparse, thus further studies are needed. We conducted a retrospective study with the aim of comparing hypofractionated boost (HB) and normofractionated boost (NB) on skin toxicity and local control. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 96 women with early breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery and hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) were retrospectively analyzed divided into hypofractionated boost group and conventional fractionation boost group. Forty-nine patients were treated with NB with 16 Gy in 8 fractions and 47 patients were treated with HB with 13.35 Gy in 5 fractions. We examined acute and chronic toxicity with CTCAE version 5.

resultsThe median follow-up was 49.5 months (26-67). Median age was 57 years (36-82). Sixty-six patients (68.7%) were younger than 60 years at the time of boost and 30 (31.2%) were older than 60 years who received the boost due to poor prognostic factors. No differences were found between the two groups in terms of patient, tumor or treatment characteristics. Grade 2 acute skin toxicity was 6.3% in the NB group and 4.2% in the HB group. Chronic skin induration was 4.2% in the NB group and 1% in the HB group. They did not show grade 3 skin toxicity. There were also no differences in acute or late skin toxicity between the two groups. No local recurrences were evidenced.

conclusionsHypofractionated WBI associated with HB treatment is a viable option in the management of conservative breast therapy given the good tolerance and similar local control.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRetrospective StudiesAdverse effectsEarly breast cancerHypofractionated boostLocal recurrenceNormofractionated boostRadiotherapy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.