Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025
Comparison of simultaneous integrated tumor bed boost and sequential boost during hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Dan-Qiong, Song Yu-Chun, Jing Hao, Fang Hui, Song Yong-Wen, Liu Yue-Ping, Jin Jing, Qi Shu-Nan, Tang Yuan, Lu Ning-Ning, Chen Bo, Li Ning, Zhai Yi-Rui, Zhang Wen-Wen, Liu Xin, Chen Si-Ye, Yang Zhuan-Bo, Sun Guang-Yi, Zhao Xu-Ran, Qiu Zi-Han, Li Ye-Xiong, Tang Yu, Wang Shu-Lian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and sequential boost (SeB) during hypofractionated WBI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from two prospective studies, including 1,132 patients with pT1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer, of whom 775 received SIB and 357 received SeB. The prescribed dose was 43.5 Gy in 15 fractions to whole breast and/or nodal region, with either 49.5 Gy in 15 fractions (SIB) or 8.7 Gy in 3 fractions (SeB) delivered to tumor bed. Outcomes analyzed included survival outcomes, treatment-related toxicities, and cosmetic outcomes.
RESULTS: The 5-year outcomes were local control rates of 97.8 % vs. 98.8 % (p = 0.12), locoregional control rates of 97.7 % vs. 97.1 % (p = 0.72), disease-free survival of 94.1 % vs. 93.1 % (p = 0.71), overall survival of 97.4 % vs. 97.1 % (p = 0.88), and breast-specific survival of 98.2 % vs. 97.5 % (p = 0.43) for SIB versus SeB, respectively. After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, differences between groups remained non-significant. Rates of fair or poor cosmetic outcomes before and after radiotherapy were lower in the SIB group, but there was no difference in cosmetic deterioration (9.8 % vs. 7.6 %, p = 0.22). Grade 2 or higher toxicities, including skin toxicity, pneumonitis, breast swelling, pain, induration, lymphedema, and shoulder mobility issues, were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSION: SIB is a viable alternative to SeB, offering comparable toxicity profiles and survival outcomes while shortening treatment duration. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess long-term outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from two prospective studies, including 1,132 patients with pT1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer, of whom 775 received SIB and 357 received SeB. The prescribed dose was 43.5 Gy in 15 fractions to whole breast and/or nodal region, with either 49.5 Gy in 15 fractions (SIB) or 8.7 Gy in 3 fractions (SeB) delivered to tumor bed. Outcomes analyzed included survival outcomes, treatment-related toxicities, and cosmetic outcomes.
RESULTS: The 5-year outcomes were local control rates of 97.8 % vs. 98.8 % (p = 0.12), locoregional control rates of 97.7 % vs. 97.1 % (p = 0.72), disease-free survival of 94.1 % vs. 93.1 % (p = 0.71), overall survival of 97.4 % vs. 97.1 % (p = 0.88), and breast-specific survival of 98.2 % vs. 97.5 % (p = 0.43) for SIB versus SeB, respectively. After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, differences between groups remained non-significant. Rates of fair or poor cosmetic outcomes before and after radiotherapy were lower in the SIB group, but there was no difference in cosmetic deterioration (9.8 % vs. 7.6 %, p = 0.22). Grade 2 or higher toxicities, including skin toxicity, pneumonitis, breast swelling, pain, induration, lymphedema, and shoulder mobility issues, were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSION: SIB is a viable alternative to SeB, offering comparable toxicity profiles and survival outcomes while shortening treatment duration. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess long-term outcomes.