SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy and safety of hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is one of the most frequent cancers globally, and radiotherapy plays an important key role in reducing the chance of recurrence following breast-conserving surgery. As an alternative to traditional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT), hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HFRT) has gained popularity since it provides similar oncological results over shorter treatment periods. Nevertheless, the comparative effectiveness and safety profile of hypofractionated versus conventional fractionation schedules remains an area of ongoing evaluation. Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of HFRT versus CFRT in patients with breast cancer, with particular emphasis on disease-free survival and treatment-related toxicity. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted through December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies evaluating HFRT versus CFRT in early-stage breast cancer. Key outcomes assessed included disease-free survival (DFS) and treatment-related toxicities, particularly lymphedema and acute radiation dermatitis. The Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used. Results: Eight studies comprising 5,495 breast cancer patients were identified. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) in 5 years ( Conclusion: HFRT demonstrated comparable oncological outcomes to CFRT, with a trend toward reduced acute skin toxicity, indicating that it could be a promising therapy option for early-stage breast cancer. Standardizing radiation treatments and evaluating long-term toxicity and patient-reported results should be the goals of future research. Also, the observed variability across studies warrants cautious interpretation of the pooled estimates, particularly for outcomes demonstrating substantial heterogeneity. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42025631012.
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.