Is a higher boost dose of radiation necessary after breast-conserving therapy for patients with breast cancer with final close or positive margins?
To determine rates of loco-regional recurrence (LRR), distant failure and overall survival for patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with a close or positive surgical margin (C/PM) treated with standard dose boost radiation compared with a higher boost of radiation...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Breast cancer research and treatment 2015-11, Vol.154 (1), p.71-79 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 79 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 71 |
container_title | Breast cancer research and treatment |
container_volume | 154 |
creator | Sadek, Betro T. Homayounfar, Gelareh Abi Raad, Rita F. Niemierko, Andrzej Shenouda, Mina N. Keruakous, Amany R. Specht, Michelle C. Taghian, Alphonse G. |
description | To determine rates of loco-regional recurrence (LRR), distant failure and overall survival for patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with a close or positive surgical margin (C/PM) treated with standard dose boost radiation compared with a higher boost of radiation. We retrospectively studied 1476 patients with T1–T3 invasive breast cancer treated with BCT between 1992 and 2009. Median age was 57 years. Patients were divided into three groups: Group I included 1197 patients (81 %) with negative margins who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy) total dose to the lumpectomy cavity; Group II included 116 patients (8 %) with C/PM who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy); and Group III included 163 patients (11 %) with C/PM who received a higher boost (median 68 Gy). Biological subtypes (e.g., ER, PR, HER2/neu) were available for 858 patients (58 %) and were also assessed for any relationship to LRR rate. The Kaplan–Meier, Cox-regression, and log-rank tests were used to estimate rates of LRR and the significance of risk factors. Median follow-up was 8.6 years. The overall 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR were 2.1 % (95 % CI 0.8–2.1 %) and 4.5 % (95 % CI 3.4–6.0 %), respectively. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR for Group I (negative margins + standard boost) were 1.9 and 4.4 %; for Group II (C/PM + standard boost) were 3.9 and 7.0 %; and for Group III (C/PM + higher boost) were 2.9 and 3.8 %, respectively. No statistically significant differences in LRR rates were found among the three groups (
p
= 0.4). Similar results were obtained for distant failure (
p
= 0.3) and overall survival (
p
= 0.4). On multivariate analysis, tumor grade (
p
= 0.03), systemic-therapy (
p
= 0.005), node positivity (
p
= 0.05), young age (
p
= 0.001), and biological subtype (
p
= 0.04) were statistically significantly associated with higher LRR. Higher boost dose and margin positivity were not significant. Our data suggest that the 10-year risk of local recurrence for patients with close or positive margins receiving a standard boost was 7 % compared to 3.8 % for those receiving a higher boost; however, this difference was not significant. A higher boost dose did not significantly improve local control, nor did margins impact LRR risk in our cohort of patients. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10549-015-3579-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1727992917</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A432838662</galeid><sourcerecordid>A432838662</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-cae314dc3317311afe8123fdf7fd0c8c9804cccab99f845d21de407e5718902c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks9uEzEQxi0EoiHwAFyQJSTEZYv_7K7XJ1RVQCtV4gJny_GOE1cbO3icVnkOXhinCaVFIB8sjX_fN5rxR8hrzk45Y-oDcta1umG8a2SndKOfkBnvlGyU4OopmTHeq6YfWH9CXiBeM8a0Yvo5ORF9K1jL5Iz8vERq6SosV5DpIiUsdEwINHma7RhsCSnSCA4Qbd5R68uey2CxNC5FhHwT4pKWKrebHfUp000VQSxIb0NZHVnqbHRVeVfyIdqJuumuT-UThhJugK5tXoaIH1-SZ95OCK-O95x8__zp2_lFc_X1y-X52VXjupbV9hYkb0cnJVeSc-th4EL60Ss_Mjc4PbDWOWcXWvuh7UbBR2iZgk7xQTPh5Jy8P_hucvqxBSxmHdDBNNkIaYuGK6G0Frraz8nbv9DrtM11jAMl20H2wx9qaScwIfpUsnV7U3PWSjHIoe9FpU7_QdUzwjrUnYIPtf5I8O6BYAV2KitM03b_N_gY5AfQ5YSYwZtNDnWrO8OZ2SfGHBJjamLMPjFGV82b42TbxRrGe8XviFRAHACsT3EJ-cHo_3X9BesOy4s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1727348368</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is a higher boost dose of radiation necessary after breast-conserving therapy for patients with breast cancer with final close or positive margins?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Sadek, Betro T. ; Homayounfar, Gelareh ; Abi Raad, Rita F. ; Niemierko, Andrzej ; Shenouda, Mina N. ; Keruakous, Amany R. ; Specht, Michelle C. ; Taghian, Alphonse G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sadek, Betro T. ; Homayounfar, Gelareh ; Abi Raad, Rita F. ; Niemierko, Andrzej ; Shenouda, Mina N. ; Keruakous, Amany R. ; Specht, Michelle C. ; Taghian, Alphonse G.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine rates of loco-regional recurrence (LRR), distant failure and overall survival for patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with a close or positive surgical margin (C/PM) treated with standard dose boost radiation compared with a higher boost of radiation. We retrospectively studied 1476 patients with T1–T3 invasive breast cancer treated with BCT between 1992 and 2009. Median age was 57 years. Patients were divided into three groups: Group I included 1197 patients (81 %) with negative margins who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy) total dose to the lumpectomy cavity; Group II included 116 patients (8 %) with C/PM who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy); and Group III included 163 patients (11 %) with C/PM who received a higher boost (median 68 Gy). Biological subtypes (e.g., ER, PR, HER2/neu) were available for 858 patients (58 %) and were also assessed for any relationship to LRR rate. The Kaplan–Meier, Cox-regression, and log-rank tests were used to estimate rates of LRR and the significance of risk factors. Median follow-up was 8.6 years. The overall 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR were 2.1 % (95 % CI 0.8–2.1 %) and 4.5 % (95 % CI 3.4–6.0 %), respectively. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR for Group I (negative margins + standard boost) were 1.9 and 4.4 %; for Group II (C/PM + standard boost) were 3.9 and 7.0 %; and for Group III (C/PM + higher boost) were 2.9 and 3.8 %, respectively. No statistically significant differences in LRR rates were found among the three groups (
p
= 0.4). Similar results were obtained for distant failure (
p
= 0.3) and overall survival (
p
= 0.4). On multivariate analysis, tumor grade (
p
= 0.03), systemic-therapy (
p
= 0.005), node positivity (
p
= 0.05), young age (
p
= 0.001), and biological subtype (
p
= 0.04) were statistically significantly associated with higher LRR. Higher boost dose and margin positivity were not significant. Our data suggest that the 10-year risk of local recurrence for patients with close or positive margins receiving a standard boost was 7 % compared to 3.8 % for those receiving a higher boost; however, this difference was not significant. A higher boost dose did not significantly improve local control, nor did margins impact LRR risk in our cohort of patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7217</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3579-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26420403</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BCTRD6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Cancer patients ; Cancer research ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Clinical Trial ; Comparative analysis ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Lumpectomy ; Mastectomy, Segmental ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - pathology ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - radiotherapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery ; Neoplasm Staging ; Neoplasm, Residual - pathology ; Neoplasm, Residual - radiotherapy ; Neoplasm, Residual - surgery ; Oncology ; Patients ; Radiation (Physics) ; Radiation therapy ; Receptor, ErbB-2 - genetics</subject><ispartof>Breast cancer research and treatment, 2015-11, Vol.154 (1), p.71-79</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-cae314dc3317311afe8123fdf7fd0c8c9804cccab99f845d21de407e5718902c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-cae314dc3317311afe8123fdf7fd0c8c9804cccab99f845d21de407e5718902c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10549-015-3579-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-015-3579-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26420403$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sadek, Betro T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homayounfar, Gelareh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abi Raad, Rita F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niemierko, Andrzej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shenouda, Mina N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keruakous, Amany R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Specht, Michelle C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taghian, Alphonse G.</creatorcontrib><title>Is a higher boost dose of radiation necessary after breast-conserving therapy for patients with breast cancer with final close or positive margins?</title><title>Breast cancer research and treatment</title><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><description>To determine rates of loco-regional recurrence (LRR), distant failure and overall survival for patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with a close or positive surgical margin (C/PM) treated with standard dose boost radiation compared with a higher boost of radiation. We retrospectively studied 1476 patients with T1–T3 invasive breast cancer treated with BCT between 1992 and 2009. Median age was 57 years. Patients were divided into three groups: Group I included 1197 patients (81 %) with negative margins who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy) total dose to the lumpectomy cavity; Group II included 116 patients (8 %) with C/PM who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy); and Group III included 163 patients (11 %) with C/PM who received a higher boost (median 68 Gy). Biological subtypes (e.g., ER, PR, HER2/neu) were available for 858 patients (58 %) and were also assessed for any relationship to LRR rate. The Kaplan–Meier, Cox-regression, and log-rank tests were used to estimate rates of LRR and the significance of risk factors. Median follow-up was 8.6 years. The overall 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR were 2.1 % (95 % CI 0.8–2.1 %) and 4.5 % (95 % CI 3.4–6.0 %), respectively. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR for Group I (negative margins + standard boost) were 1.9 and 4.4 %; for Group II (C/PM + standard boost) were 3.9 and 7.0 %; and for Group III (C/PM + higher boost) were 2.9 and 3.8 %, respectively. No statistically significant differences in LRR rates were found among the three groups (
p
= 0.4). Similar results were obtained for distant failure (
p
= 0.3) and overall survival (
p
= 0.4). On multivariate analysis, tumor grade (
p
= 0.03), systemic-therapy (
p
= 0.005), node positivity (
p
= 0.05), young age (
p
= 0.001), and biological subtype (
p
= 0.04) were statistically significantly associated with higher LRR. Higher boost dose and margin positivity were not significant. Our data suggest that the 10-year risk of local recurrence for patients with close or positive margins receiving a standard boost was 7 % compared to 3.8 % for those receiving a higher boost; however, this difference was not significant. A higher boost dose did not significantly improve local control, nor did margins impact LRR risk in our cohort of patients.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Cancer patients</subject><subject>Cancer research</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Clinical Trial</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Disease-Free Survival</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Lumpectomy</subject><subject>Mastectomy, Segmental</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - pathology</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual - pathology</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual - surgery</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiation (Physics)</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Receptor, ErbB-2 - genetics</subject><issn>0167-6806</issn><issn>1573-7217</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks9uEzEQxi0EoiHwAFyQJSTEZYv_7K7XJ1RVQCtV4gJny_GOE1cbO3icVnkOXhinCaVFIB8sjX_fN5rxR8hrzk45Y-oDcta1umG8a2SndKOfkBnvlGyU4OopmTHeq6YfWH9CXiBeM8a0Yvo5ORF9K1jL5Iz8vERq6SosV5DpIiUsdEwINHma7RhsCSnSCA4Qbd5R68uey2CxNC5FhHwT4pKWKrebHfUp000VQSxIb0NZHVnqbHRVeVfyIdqJuumuT-UThhJugK5tXoaIH1-SZ95OCK-O95x8__zp2_lFc_X1y-X52VXjupbV9hYkb0cnJVeSc-th4EL60Ss_Mjc4PbDWOWcXWvuh7UbBR2iZgk7xQTPh5Jy8P_hucvqxBSxmHdDBNNkIaYuGK6G0Frraz8nbv9DrtM11jAMl20H2wx9qaScwIfpUsnV7U3PWSjHIoe9FpU7_QdUzwjrUnYIPtf5I8O6BYAV2KitM03b_N_gY5AfQ5YSYwZtNDnWrO8OZ2SfGHBJjamLMPjFGV82b42TbxRrGe8XviFRAHACsT3EJ-cHo_3X9BesOy4s</recordid><startdate>20151101</startdate><enddate>20151101</enddate><creator>Sadek, Betro T.</creator><creator>Homayounfar, Gelareh</creator><creator>Abi Raad, Rita F.</creator><creator>Niemierko, Andrzej</creator><creator>Shenouda, Mina N.</creator><creator>Keruakous, Amany R.</creator><creator>Specht, Michelle C.</creator><creator>Taghian, Alphonse G.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151101</creationdate><title>Is a higher boost dose of radiation necessary after breast-conserving therapy for patients with breast cancer with final close or positive margins?</title><author>Sadek, Betro T. ; Homayounfar, Gelareh ; Abi Raad, Rita F. ; Niemierko, Andrzej ; Shenouda, Mina N. ; Keruakous, Amany R. ; Specht, Michelle C. ; Taghian, Alphonse G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-cae314dc3317311afe8123fdf7fd0c8c9804cccab99f845d21de407e5718902c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Cancer patients</topic><topic>Cancer research</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Clinical Trial</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Disease-Free Survival</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Lumpectomy</topic><topic>Mastectomy, Segmental</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - pathology</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual - pathology</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual - surgery</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiation (Physics)</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Receptor, ErbB-2 - genetics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sadek, Betro T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homayounfar, Gelareh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abi Raad, Rita F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niemierko, Andrzej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shenouda, Mina N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keruakous, Amany R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Specht, Michelle C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taghian, Alphonse G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sadek, Betro T.</au><au>Homayounfar, Gelareh</au><au>Abi Raad, Rita F.</au><au>Niemierko, Andrzej</au><au>Shenouda, Mina N.</au><au>Keruakous, Amany R.</au><au>Specht, Michelle C.</au><au>Taghian, Alphonse G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is a higher boost dose of radiation necessary after breast-conserving therapy for patients with breast cancer with final close or positive margins?</atitle><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle><stitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</stitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><date>2015-11-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>154</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>71</spage><epage>79</epage><pages>71-79</pages><issn>0167-6806</issn><eissn>1573-7217</eissn><coden>BCTRD6</coden><abstract>To determine rates of loco-regional recurrence (LRR), distant failure and overall survival for patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with a close or positive surgical margin (C/PM) treated with standard dose boost radiation compared with a higher boost of radiation. We retrospectively studied 1476 patients with T1–T3 invasive breast cancer treated with BCT between 1992 and 2009. Median age was 57 years. Patients were divided into three groups: Group I included 1197 patients (81 %) with negative margins who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy) total dose to the lumpectomy cavity; Group II included 116 patients (8 %) with C/PM who received a standard boost (median 60 Gy); and Group III included 163 patients (11 %) with C/PM who received a higher boost (median 68 Gy). Biological subtypes (e.g., ER, PR, HER2/neu) were available for 858 patients (58 %) and were also assessed for any relationship to LRR rate. The Kaplan–Meier, Cox-regression, and log-rank tests were used to estimate rates of LRR and the significance of risk factors. Median follow-up was 8.6 years. The overall 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR were 2.1 % (95 % CI 0.8–2.1 %) and 4.5 % (95 % CI 3.4–6.0 %), respectively. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of LRR for Group I (negative margins + standard boost) were 1.9 and 4.4 %; for Group II (C/PM + standard boost) were 3.9 and 7.0 %; and for Group III (C/PM + higher boost) were 2.9 and 3.8 %, respectively. No statistically significant differences in LRR rates were found among the three groups (
p
= 0.4). Similar results were obtained for distant failure (
p
= 0.3) and overall survival (
p
= 0.4). On multivariate analysis, tumor grade (
p
= 0.03), systemic-therapy (
p
= 0.005), node positivity (
p
= 0.05), young age (
p
= 0.001), and biological subtype (
p
= 0.04) were statistically significantly associated with higher LRR. Higher boost dose and margin positivity were not significant. Our data suggest that the 10-year risk of local recurrence for patients with close or positive margins receiving a standard boost was 7 % compared to 3.8 % for those receiving a higher boost; however, this difference was not significant. A higher boost dose did not significantly improve local control, nor did margins impact LRR risk in our cohort of patients.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26420403</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10549-015-3579-9</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0167-6806 |
ispartof | Breast cancer research and treatment, 2015-11, Vol.154 (1), p.71-79 |
issn | 0167-6806 1573-7217 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1727992917 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - pathology Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy Breast Neoplasms - surgery Cancer patients Cancer research Cancer therapies Care and treatment Clinical Trial Comparative analysis Disease-Free Survival Female Humans Kaplan-Meier Estimate Lumpectomy Mastectomy, Segmental Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - pathology Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - radiotherapy Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery Neoplasm Staging Neoplasm, Residual - pathology Neoplasm, Residual - radiotherapy Neoplasm, Residual - surgery Oncology Patients Radiation (Physics) Radiation therapy Receptor, ErbB-2 - genetics |
title | Is a higher boost dose of radiation necessary after breast-conserving therapy for patients with breast cancer with final close or positive margins? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T00%3A36%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20a%20higher%20boost%20dose%20of%20radiation%20necessary%20after%20breast-conserving%20therapy%20for%20patients%20with%20breast%20cancer%20with%20final%20close%20or%20positive%20margins?&rft.jtitle=Breast%20cancer%20research%20and%20treatment&rft.au=Sadek,%20Betro%20T.&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=154&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=71&rft.epage=79&rft.pages=71-79&rft.issn=0167-6806&rft.eissn=1573-7217&rft.coden=BCTRD6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10549-015-3579-9&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA432838662%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1727348368&rft_id=info:pmid/26420403&rft_galeid=A432838662&rfr_iscdi=true |