4.7 Article

Tumor factors predictive of response to hypofractionated radiotherapy in a randomized trial following breast conserving therapy

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 992-998

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu090

关键词

breast cancer; biomarker; hypofractionated radiotherapy; randomized controlled trial

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation
  2. Ontario division
  3. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Award [1A-008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine whether tumor grade, molecular subtype and hypoxia predict response to hypofractionated versus standard radiotherapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for node-negative breast cancer in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor blocks were available on 989 of 1234 patients enrolled in the Hypofractionation Whole Breast Irradiation (HWBI) Trial. A central pathology review and assessment of tumor grade using the Nottingham grading system was carried out. Tumors were classified by molecular subtype as luminal A, luminal B, HER2 enriched, basal-like or unclassified using a six-biomarker panel; ER, PR, HER-2, Ki67, CK5/6 and EGFR. Tumors were also classified as hypoxic based on the expression of HIF1 alpha, CAIX or GLUT-1. The primary end point was local recurrence (LR). Median follow-up was 12 years. In the multivariable Cox model, molecular subtype was the only factor predictive of LR, the 10-year cumulative incidence was 4.5% for luminal A and basal-like, 7.9% for luminal B and 16.9% for HER-2 enriched tumors (P < 0.01). Tumor grade, molecular subtype or hypoxia did not predict response to hypofractionation. In women enrolled in the HWBI trial following BCS tumor molecular subtype predicted LR. However tumor grade, molecular subtype and hypoxia did not predict response to hypofractionation suggesting that patients with node-negative breast tumors of all grades and molecular subtypes may be safely treated with hypofractionated RT regimens.

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