4.7 Article

DOSE TO THE CONTRALATERAL BREAST FROM RADIOTHERAPY AND RISK OF SECOND PRIMARY BREAST CANCER IN THE WECARE STUDY

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.040

Keywords

Contralateral breast; Radiation risk; Secondary breast cancer

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA42949, U01-CA83178, R01 CA042949, R01 CA129639, R01 CA097397, U01 CA083178, R01-CA97397] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To quantify the risk of second primary breast cancer in the contralateral breast (CB) after radiotherapy (RT) for first breast cancer. Methods and Materials: The study population included participants in the Women's Environmental, Cancer, and Radiation Epidemiology study: 708 cases (women with asynchronous bilateral breast cancer) and 1399 controls (women with unilateral breast cancer) counter-matched on radiation treatment. Participants were <55 years of age at first breast cancer. Absorbed doses to quadrants of the CB were estimated. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression models. Results: Across all patients, the mean radiation dose to the specific quadrant of the CB tumor was 1.1 Gy. Women <40 years of age who received >1.0 Gy of absorbed dose to the specific quadrant of the CB had a 2.5-fold greater risk for CB cancer than unexposed women (RR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.5). No excess risk was observed in women >40 years of age. Women <40 years of age with follow-up periods >5 years had a RR of 3.0 (95% CI 1.1-8.1), and the dose response was significant (excess RR per Gy of 1.0, 95% CI 0.1-3.0). Conclusions: Women <40 years of age who received a radiation dose >1.0 Gy to the CB had an elevated, long-term risk of developing a second primary CB cancer. The risk is inversely related to age at exposure and is dose dependent. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available