Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37507556›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2023

Intraoperative Radiotherapy as a Tumour-Bed Boost Combined with Whole Breast Irradiation Versus Conventional Radiotherapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Jiafa He, Shengying Chen, Lingling Ye, Yang Sun, Yan Dai, Xue Song, Xiaojie Lin, Rui Xu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiafa He *Breast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shengying Chen *Breast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lingling YeBreast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yang SunBreast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yan DaiBreast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xue SongBreast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xiaojie LinBreast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Rui XuBreast Department, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. catdoctor007@163.com.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no definitive answer regarding the efficacy of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as a tumour bed boost for patients with early-stage breast cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarise the available evidence and explore the efficacy and safety of IORT combined with whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus conventional radiotherapy in women with early-stage breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery.

methodsThe PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. We collected studies on the efficacy, cosmetic outcome, and safety of IORT boost combined with WBI compared with those of conventional radiotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery. Two authors independently performed the literature selection and data extraction. The quality of the randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the PEDro scale. The quality of non-RCTs was assessed according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies. Risk ratios (RRs) for the local recurrence rate (LRR), distant metastasis rate (DMR), disease-free survival (DFS), cosmetic outcome, and toxicity were pooled using fixed or random effects models. Meta-analysis of the included studies was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.

resultsNine studies, including one RCT and eight non-RCTs, with a total of 3219 patients were included. In terms of LRR, there was no significant benefit of IORT boost+WBI over conventional radiotherapy (with or without the tumour bed boost) (RR = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-1.09, P = 0.14), but a trend towards benefit could be identified. There was a significant reduction in DMR in the IORT boost+WBI group (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.85, P = 0.003) and a significant improvement in DFS (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.25-0.65, P = 0.0002). Exploratory subgroup analysis showed that the DMR and DFS of the electron boost group were significantly better than those of conventional radiotherapy group, and there was a tendency for LRR to improve in the electron boost group. However, the LRR, DMR, and DFS did not effectively improve in the x-ray boost group. In terms of appearance and toxicity, there were no significant differences in cosmetic outcome, fibrosis, and hyperpigmentation between the two groups (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.91-1.07, P = 0.78; RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.41-2.56, P = 0.96; RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.10-1.72, P = 0.23), but the incidence of oedema was significantly reduced in the IORT boost+WBI group (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.59, P = 0.0009).

conclusionsIORT boost+WBI is more effective than conventional radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in patients with early-stage breast cancer, and electron boost exhibits better efficacy than x-ray boost. In addition, the cosmetic and safety profiles of IORT boost+WBI are not inferior to those of conventional radiotherapy.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalProgression-Free Survival

Identifiers

PMID37507556
PMCPMC10625949
OpenAlexW4385335210

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.