Randomised controlled trials on radiation dose fractionation in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on side effects and cosmesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive assessment of various fractionation schemes in radiation therapy for breast cancer, with a focus on side effects, cosmesis, quality of life, risks of recurrence, and survival outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 23 October 2023). STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were randomised controlled trials focusing on conventional fractionation (CF; daily fractions of 1.8-2 Gy, reaching a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy over 5-6 weeks), moderate hypofractionation (MHF; fraction sizes of 2.65-3.3 Gy for 13-16 fractions over 3-5 weeks), and/or ultra-hypofractionation (UHF; schedule of only 5 fractions). DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach, respectively. DATA SYNTHESIS: statistic. Network meta-analysis was used to integrate all available evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pre-specified primary outcome was grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis and late radiation therapy related side effects; secondary outcomes included cosmesis, quality of life, recurrence, and survival metrics. RESULTS: From 1754 studies, 59 articles representing 35 trials (20 237 patients) were assessed; 21.6% of outcomes showed low risk of bias, whereas 78.4% had some concerns or high risk, particularly in outcome measurement (47.4%). The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for MHF compared with CF was 0.54 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.61; P<0.001) and 0.68 (0.49 to 0.93; P=0.02) following breast conserving therapy and mastectomy, respectively. Hyperpigmentation and grade ≥2 breast shrinkage were less frequent after MHF than after CF, with RRs of 0.77 (0.62 to 0.95; P=0.02) and 0.92 (0.85 to 0.99; P=0.03), respectively, in the combined breast conserving therapy and mastectomy population. However, in the breast conserving therapy only trials, these differences in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.79, 0.60 to 1.03; P=0.08) and breast shrinkage (0.94, 0.83 to 1.07; P=0.35) were not statistically significant. The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for UHF compared with MHF was 0.85 (0.47 to 1.55; P=0.60) for breast conserving therapy and mastectomy patients combined. MHF was associated with improved cosmesis and quality of life compared with CF, whereas data on UHF were less conclusive. Survival and recurrence outcomes were similar between UHF, MHF, and CF. CONCLUSIONS: MHF shows improved safety profile, cosmesis, and quality of life compared with CF while maintaining equivalent oncological outcomes. Fewer randomised controlled trials have compared UHF with other fractionation schedules, but its safety and oncological effectiveness seem to be similar with short term follow-up. Given the advantages of reduced treatment time, enhanced convenience for patients, and potential cost effectiveness, MHF and UHF should be considered as preferred options over CF in appropriate clinical settings, with further research needed to solidify these findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023460249.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,033 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».