4.5 Article

The time-varying effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 178, 期 1, 页码 221-230

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05377-8

关键词

Ductal carcinoma in situ; DCIS; Hazards; Local recurrence; Radiation

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute [18491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundA better understanding underlying radiation (RT) response after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is needed to mitigate over-treatment of DCIS. The hazard ratio (HR) measures the effect of RT but assumes the effect is constant over time. We examined the hazard function adjusted for adherence to surveillance mammography to examine variations in LR risk and the effect of RT over time.MethodsCrude hazard estimates for the development of LR in a population cohort of DCIS treated by BCSRT were computed. Multivariable extended Cox models and hazard plots were used to examine the association between receipt of RT and risk of each outcome adjusted for baseline covariates and adherence to mammography.ResultsPopulation cohort includes 3262 women treated by BCS; 1635 received RT. Median follow-up was 13 years. LR developed in 364 women treated by BCS alone and 274 treated with RT. LR risk peaked at 2 years, declined until year 7, and then remained steady. The peak hazard of LR was associated with adverse features of DCIS. Early LR risk was attenuated in patients treated with RT but late annual risks of LR and invasive LR were similar among the two treatment groups. On multivariate analysis, RT was associated with a reduction in early LR risk (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.43-0.63, p<0.0001) but did not reduce the risk of late LR (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.19, p=0.44) (interaction, p=0.002).Conclusions The effect of RT is not uniform over time and greatest in the first 7 years after BCS for DCIS, which can guide future research to understand mechanisms underlying RT response and optimize future management of DCIS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据