Favorable safety profile of moderate hypofractionated over normofractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer patients: a multicentric prospective real-life data farming analysis.
Acute toxicity
Breast cancer
Data-farming
Hypofractionation
Radiotherapy
Real-life data
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Apr 2022
20 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
29
03
2022
entrez:
21
4
2022
pubmed:
22
4
2022
medline:
23
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Moderately hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (HFRT) has proven to be as safe and efficient as normofractionated radiotherapy (NFRT) in randomized trials resulting in major changes in clinical practice. Toxicity rates observed in selected clinical trial patients may differ from those observed in unselected patients with possible comorbidities and frailty in real-life. This study aimed to examine the influence of HFRT versus NFRT on acute toxicity and identify risks factors of dermatitis in real-life patients. Prospective data from breast cancer patients, treated with locoregional radiotherapy were collected between November 2015 and February 2020 in 3 comprehensive cancer centers. Through a systematic data-farming strategy, acute toxicity evaluation forms (CTCAEv4.0) were prospectively completed and extracted electronically. The results from each center were then anonymously merged into a single database for analysis. A Chi-2 test was used to compare HFRT and NFRT. Furthermore, risk factors of dermatitis were identified in a sub-study (622 patients) by multivariate logistic regression analysis. In total, 3518 T0-4 N0-3 mostly M0 (85.8%) breast cancer patients with a median age of 60.7 (24-96 years old) were analyzed. Acute grade 2-3 dermatitis, grade 1-3 breast oedema, and grade 1-2 hyperpigmentation were less frequent with HFRT versus NFRT: respectively 8.9% versus 35.1% (Chi-2 = 373.7; p < 0.001), 29.0% versus 37.0% (Chi-2 = 23.1; p < 0.001) and 27.0% versus 55.8% (Chi-2 = 279.2; p < 0.001). Fewer patients experienced pain with HFRT versus NFRT: 33.4% versus 53.7% respectively (Chi-2 = 137.1; p < 0.001). Factors such as high BMI (OR = 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28-4.26], p < 0.01), large breast size (OR = 1.88 [95% CI, 1.07-3.28], p < 0.01) and lumpectomy over mastectomy (OR = 0.52 [95% CI, 0.27-0.97], p < 0.05) were associated with greater risk factors of grade 2-3 dermatitis in multivariate analysis regardless of NFRT or HFRT. The results of this study suggests that breast HFRT may be a better option even for patients with a high BMI or large breast size. Acute toxicity was low to mild, and lower with HFRT compared to NFRT. Results from real-life data were robust, and support the use of HFRT beyond randomized study populations. Long-term real-life data awaits further investigation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Moderately hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (HFRT) has proven to be as safe and efficient as normofractionated radiotherapy (NFRT) in randomized trials resulting in major changes in clinical practice. Toxicity rates observed in selected clinical trial patients may differ from those observed in unselected patients with possible comorbidities and frailty in real-life. This study aimed to examine the influence of HFRT versus NFRT on acute toxicity and identify risks factors of dermatitis in real-life patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Prospective data from breast cancer patients, treated with locoregional radiotherapy were collected between November 2015 and February 2020 in 3 comprehensive cancer centers. Through a systematic data-farming strategy, acute toxicity evaluation forms (CTCAEv4.0) were prospectively completed and extracted electronically. The results from each center were then anonymously merged into a single database for analysis. A Chi-2 test was used to compare HFRT and NFRT. Furthermore, risk factors of dermatitis were identified in a sub-study (622 patients) by multivariate logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 3518 T0-4 N0-3 mostly M0 (85.8%) breast cancer patients with a median age of 60.7 (24-96 years old) were analyzed. Acute grade 2-3 dermatitis, grade 1-3 breast oedema, and grade 1-2 hyperpigmentation were less frequent with HFRT versus NFRT: respectively 8.9% versus 35.1% (Chi-2 = 373.7; p < 0.001), 29.0% versus 37.0% (Chi-2 = 23.1; p < 0.001) and 27.0% versus 55.8% (Chi-2 = 279.2; p < 0.001). Fewer patients experienced pain with HFRT versus NFRT: 33.4% versus 53.7% respectively (Chi-2 = 137.1; p < 0.001). Factors such as high BMI (OR = 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28-4.26], p < 0.01), large breast size (OR = 1.88 [95% CI, 1.07-3.28], p < 0.01) and lumpectomy over mastectomy (OR = 0.52 [95% CI, 0.27-0.97], p < 0.05) were associated with greater risk factors of grade 2-3 dermatitis in multivariate analysis regardless of NFRT or HFRT.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study suggests that breast HFRT may be a better option even for patients with a high BMI or large breast size. Acute toxicity was low to mild, and lower with HFRT compared to NFRT. Results from real-life data were robust, and support the use of HFRT beyond randomized study populations. Long-term real-life data awaits further investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35443729
doi: 10.1186/s13014-022-02044-z
pii: 10.1186/s13014-022-02044-z
pmc: PMC9019802
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
80Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Sep;128(3):434-441
pubmed: 29980320
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Oct;1(7):918-30
pubmed: 26247417
Clin Breast Cancer. 2020 Dec;20(6):527-533
pubmed: 32665192
BMJ. 2016 Feb 08;352:i493
pubmed: 26858277
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Aug 1;107(5):943-948
pubmed: 32334033
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Sep 1;81(1):59-68
pubmed: 20638191
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Oct;14(11):1086-1094
pubmed: 24055415
Lancet. 2014 Jun 21;383(9935):2127-35
pubmed: 24656685
BMC Med. 2020 Jan 15;18(1):13
pubmed: 31937304
Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1707-16
pubmed: 22019144
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 May - Jun;8(3):145-152
pubmed: 29545124
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Oct;1(7):931-41
pubmed: 26247543
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 May;32(5):279-281
pubmed: 32241520
Lancet. 2020 May 23;395(10237):1613-1626
pubmed: 32580883
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):589-91
pubmed: 14966083
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 29;(4):MR000034
pubmed: 24782322
Radiol Oncol. 2018 Aug 2;52(3):233-244
pubmed: 30210048
Med Oncol. 2021 Aug 3;38(9):107
pubmed: 34342725
Lancet. 2008 Mar 29;371(9618):1098-107
pubmed: 18355913
Lancet Oncol. 2008 Apr;9(4):331-41
pubmed: 18356109
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):990-2
pubmed: 25539364
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 11;362(6):513-20
pubmed: 20147717
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Apr;107(4):773-779
pubmed: 31574163
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):352-360
pubmed: 30711522
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jul;120(1):114-8
pubmed: 27046390
BMC Cancer. 2014 Sep 25;14:711
pubmed: 25252713