American journal of surgery · 2023
DCIS: When is accelerated partial breast irradiation an option? A meta-analysis on outcomes and eligibility.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Chua Vannesza Hendricke, Chua Joyce Hazel, Aniceto Celina Joyce, Antonio Jane April, Harina Ma Dara Hannah, Martinez Karen Claire
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The natural history of DCIS may not be progression to invasive breast cancer (IBC). Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) has emerged as an alternative to whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of APBI on DCIS patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible studies from 2012 to 2022 were identified in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials, and ICTRP. A meta-analysis was done comparing recurrence rates, breast-related mortality rates, and adverse events of APBI versus WBRT. A subgroup analysis of 2017 ASTRO Guidelines "Suitable" and "Unsuitable" groups was performed. Forest plots and quantitative analysis were done.
RESULTS: Six studies were eligible (3 on APBI versus WBRT, 3 on APBI suitability). All had a low risk of bias and publication bias. The cumulative incidence was the following for APBI and WBRT respectively: IBTR was 5.7% and 6.3% with odds ratio of 1.09, 95% CI [0.84, 1.42], mortality rate was 4.9% and 5.05%, and adverse events was 48.87% and 69.63%. All had no statistical significance between groups. Adverse events were found to favor the APBI arm. Recurrence rate was significantly less in the Suitable group with an odds ratio 2.69, 95% CI [1.56, 4.67], favoring it over the Unsuitable group.
CONCLUSION: APBI was comparable to WBRT in terms of recurrence rate, breast cancer-related mortality rate, and adverse events. APBI was not inferior to WBRT and showed better safety in terms of skin toxicity. Patients classified as suitable for APBI had significantly lesser recurrence rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible studies from 2012 to 2022 were identified in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials, and ICTRP. A meta-analysis was done comparing recurrence rates, breast-related mortality rates, and adverse events of APBI versus WBRT. A subgroup analysis of 2017 ASTRO Guidelines "Suitable" and "Unsuitable" groups was performed. Forest plots and quantitative analysis were done.
RESULTS: Six studies were eligible (3 on APBI versus WBRT, 3 on APBI suitability). All had a low risk of bias and publication bias. The cumulative incidence was the following for APBI and WBRT respectively: IBTR was 5.7% and 6.3% with odds ratio of 1.09, 95% CI [0.84, 1.42], mortality rate was 4.9% and 5.05%, and adverse events was 48.87% and 69.63%. All had no statistical significance between groups. Adverse events were found to favor the APBI arm. Recurrence rate was significantly less in the Suitable group with an odds ratio 2.69, 95% CI [1.56, 4.67], favoring it over the Unsuitable group.
CONCLUSION: APBI was comparable to WBRT in terms of recurrence rate, breast cancer-related mortality rate, and adverse events. APBI was not inferior to WBRT and showed better safety in terms of skin toxicity. Patients classified as suitable for APBI had significantly lesser recurrence rate.