ArticleMedicine international
Comparative efficacy and safety of two radiotherapy protocols for ovarian ablation in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Medicine international. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiotherapy (RT) for ovarian ablation (OA) in patients with metastatic breast cancer by comparing two RT protocols: 15 Gy in 5 fractions (arm A) vs. 20 Gy in 10 fractions (arm B). For this purpose, the present study enrolled 68 patients, divided equally into two study arms. The patients were followed-up for 24 weeks post-intervention. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of RT in inducing OA, assessed through amenorrhea and hormone levels [follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol]. Toxicities were evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, and post-menopausal symptoms were assessed using the Menopause Rating Scale. The results revealed that there was no significant difference between the two study arms (A vs. B) in the rate of amenorrhea development and persistence (85.7 vs. 89.5%), and in the achievement of postmenopausal estradiol (91.2 vs. 94.1%) and FSH levels (79.4 vs. 88.2%). Both regimens led to a significant reduction in estradiol levels and an increase in FSH levels compared to baseline levels. No grade ≥3 toxicity was observed. Common postmenopausal symptoms included hot flushes and irritability, with no significant differences between the groups. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that both RT regimens are effective and safe for OA in patients with metastatic breast cancer, with no significant differences in efficacy or toxicity. The findings are particularly relevant in resource-limited settings, underscoring the potential for flexible and shorter treatment regimens in such environment.
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.