4.7 Article

Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer:: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 22, 页码 3259-3265

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.4991

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [2U10-CA11488-36, 5R10-CA11488-11] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To investigate the long-term impact of a boost radiation dose of 16 Gy on local control, fibrosis, and overall survival for patients with stage I and II breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving therapy. Patients and Methods A total of 5,318 patients with microscopically complete excision followed by whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy were randomly assigned to receive either a boost dose of 16 Gy ( 2,661 patients) or no boost dose ( 2,657 patients), with a median follow-up of 10.8 years. Results The median age was 55 years. Local recurrence was reported as the first treatment failure in 278 patients with no boost versus 165 patients with boost; at 10 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was 10.2% versus 6.2% for the no boost and the boost group, respectively ( P < .0001). The hazard ratio of local recurrence was 0.59 ( 0.46 to 0.76) in favor of the boost, with no statistically significant interaction per age group. The absolute risk reduction at 10 years per age group was the largest in patients <= 40 years of age: 23.9% to 13.5% ( P = .0014). As a result, the number of salvage mastectomies has been reduced by 41%. Severe fibrosis was statistically significantly increased ( P < .0001) in the boost group, with a 10-year rate of 4.4% versus 1.6% in the no boost group ( P < .0001). Survival at 10 years was 82% in both arms. Conclusion A fter a median follow-up period of 10.8 years, a boost dose of 16 Gy led to improved local control in all age groups, but no difference in survival.

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

4.7
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