Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation With or Without Boost in Elderly Patients: Clinical Evaluation of an Italian Experience.

PURPOSE: To examine local control, disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicity in elderly (≥ 65 years) breast cancer patients treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (hypo-RT) with or without a boost to the tumor bed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 752 patients treated from April 2009 to February 2017. Patients received 42.4 Gy in 16 daily fractions (2.65 Gy per fraction). A boost was only administered in cases of grade 3 primary tumor and close or positive margins. Acute and late toxicity was prospectively assessed during and after hypo-RT, based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. DFS and local recurrence-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for cumulative probability. Log-rank tests were used to identify differences by subtype. Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the impact of various factors on the risk of disease progression.

RESULTS: Among the 752 patients treated, 41 (5.5%) experienced disease progression, including 7 (17.1%) exclusively local recurrences; 1 (2.4%) local and nodal recurrence; 1 (2.4%) local and nodal recurrence plus metastasis; 7 (17.1%) nodal recurrences plus metastases; and 25 (61%) exclusively distant metastases. The 5-year DFS, local recurrence-free survival, breast cancer-specific survival, and overall survival rates were 91.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-94.2), 98.0% (95% CI, 96.1-99.1), 98.2% (95% CI, 96.5-99.1), and 87.5% (95% CI, 83.8-90.5), respectively. On univariate analysis, the administration of a boost, disease grade (grades 1 and 2 vs. 3), and molecular subtype (triple negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2] positive, or luminal B vs. luminal A) significantly affected disease progression (P < .01). These findings were confirmed by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION: Hypo-RT is effective and well tolerated in the elderly population, and the routine use of a boost for patients over 65 years is not justified. Further studies on the boost issue are strongly advocated.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app