4.2 Article

Incidence of Morphea following Adjuvant Irradiation of the Breast in 2,268 Patients

期刊

BREAST CARE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 246-252

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000502030

关键词

Morphea; Incidence; Radiotherapy; Irradiation; Breast

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:Morphea of the breast is an autoimmune reaction of the subcutaneous connective tissue which can be triggered by exposure to ionizing radiation. The literature suggests incidence rates of 1:500 to 1:3,000 which, however, do not seem to match the very small number of cases reported.Objectives:The aim of the present study was to determine the incidence of morphea following irradiation of the breast in order to generate more evidence about the frequency of this serious and mutilating complication.Method:Retrospective analysis of patient data who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy in the period 2009-2018 following breast-conserving surgery and who made use of the recommended radiooncology follow-up examinations in 2018. Analysis was done by descriptive statistics.Results:Of a total of 5,129 patients who had undergone radiotherapy over a 10-year period, follow-up data were available in 2,268 patients. In 2,236 patients (98.6%) the breast had been irradiated using conventional fractionation schemes with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy; 32 (1.4%) were given a total dose of 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions. During the observation period, 6 patients were diagnosed with morphea (4 unilateral and 2 bilateral) by punch biopsies resulting in a cumulative incidence proportion of 0.26% (95% CI: 0.24-0.28), translating into 1 case for every 378 irradiated patients.Conclusions:In the case studies reported to date, morphea is described as a very rare complication. In contrast, our data suggest a cumulative incidence of 1:378, which is higher than other authors have estimated. This leads us to suspect that in a large number of patients, morphea is incorrectly diagnosed as an infection (in the early stages) and radiation-induced fibrosis (in later stages).

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

4.2
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