ArticleClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2024
Second Malignancy Probabilities in Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Conventional Versus Hypofractionated External Beam Radiation Therapy in the Adjuvant Setting.
Article in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsFor women with breast cancer, seminal studies have shown that adjuvant hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (hEBRT) maintains similar outcomes and may reduce overall costs compared with conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT). However, it is unclear whether hEBRT may be associated with differential risk of development of radiation-induced second malignancies compared with cEBRT. Because the occurrence of second malignancies is small, large databases may improve our understanding of the relative risk of second malignancies between hEBRT and cEBRT. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing the National Cancer Database, we carried out a retrospective cohort analysis of women diagnosed with non-metastatic, stage 0-III breast cancer from 2004 to 2017. All patients had a lumpectomy or mastectomy and a follow-up time of at least 60 months after diagnosis. The probability of second malignancies in women receiving adjuvant cEBRT or hEBRT was compared using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic, geographical, clinical and treatment factors, allowing for relative (but not absolute) comparison of second malignancy risk. Temporal sensitivity analyses stratified by year of diagnosis and length of follow-up time were also conducted.
resultsOf the 125 228 women in our study, 115 576 (92.3%) received cEBRT and 9652 (7.71%) received hEBRT. The median age of the cohort was 60 (interquartile range 51-68) years at diagnosis and the median follow-up time was 99.61 (interquartile range 77.5-128.49) months. Upon adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, patients who received hEBRT had no difference in relative risk than patients who received cEBRT (odds ratio 0.937, 95% confidence interval 0.869-1.010, P = 0.091). In analyses stratified by year of diagnosis, and stratified by length of follow-up, there was no difference in second malignancy probability between patients who completed hEBRT and patients who completed cEBRT.
conclusionsIn this analysis of over 120 000 women with non-metastatic breast cancer, hEBRT was not associated with different odds of developing second malignancies compared with cEBRT. Our findings may inform patient counselling in the choice of radiation regimens for breast cancer and further support the safety of hypofractionated regimens for breast cancer.
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.