4.6 Review

Comparing Hypofractionated With Conventional Fractionated Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.753209

Keywords

breast cancer; hypofractionated radiotherapy; conventional fractionated radiotherapy; breast-conserving surgery; meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated and conventional fractionation radiotherapy in early-stage breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery. The results showed no statistical difference in terms of local recurrence, relapse-free survival, overall survival, and cosmetic outcomes between the two treatment methods. Hypofractionated radiotherapy had fewer severe adverse reactions compared to conventional radiotherapy.
Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy between hypofractionated and conventional fractionation radiotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before February 2021. At the same time, the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate local recurrence (LR), relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and cosmetic outcomes. Results: A total of 14 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Four thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to the control group to receive conventional radiotherapy (CFRT); 6,072 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT). The results showed that there was no statistical difference between HFRT and CFRT in LR (HR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.97-1.02, p = 0.476), RFS (HR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.97-1.02, p = 0.485), OS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.97-1.03, p = 0.879), and cosmetic outcomes (RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.95-1.12, p = 0.53). In addition, HFRT showed fewer severe adverse reactions such as acute skin toxicity, induration, breast atrophy, and pain. Conclusion: Our results suggest that there is no statistical difference between HFRT and CFRT in terms of LR, RFS, OS, and cosmetic outcomes. HFRT reduces the risk of developing toxicity reactions compared to CFRT. HFRT may be a better option for patients with early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available