ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2026
The Tumor-Bed Boost Irradiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer 30 Years After the Landmark Trials: What Is New?
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast-conserving surgery followed by adjuvant whole-breast irradiation (WBI) remains the standard of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer. In this setting, irradiation of the tumor bed with an additional boost dose has historically been used to reduce the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Major randomized trials established that boost irradiation improved local control, particularly in younger patients, but did not confer a consistent overall survival (OS) benefit and was associated with increased late toxicity, like fibrosis, and poorer cosmetic outcomes as well. More recent evidence, including systematic reviews and contemporary consensus recommendations, suggests that boost irradiation may be safely omitted in selected low-risk patients, especially when the estimated absolute reduction in 10-year local recurrence is less than 3%. At the same time, the routine use of boost irradiation has been challenged by modern systemic therapy treatments questioning if boost could be really omitted in this set. Further advances in radiation techniques are redefining the scheduling and timing of boost administration, shifting from a conventional fractionation to hypofractionation and from the sequential (SEB) to simultaneous delivery with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). In light of increasingly minimally invasive surgery and a de-escalation RT policy, unresolved clinical issues still remain about the management of positive or close margins and the role of boost irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. This narrative review summarizes the biological rationale, historical trial evidence, and recent literature addressing these evolving scenarios. Current evidence supports a more individualized approach to boost prescription based on recurrence risk, patient age, tumor biology, margin status, treatment techniques (surgery and radiotherapy), and patient preference.
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.