MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404673110 · doi:10.1097/01.cot.0001095652.97757.9b

Shorter Radiation Course Safe for Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction

2024· article· en· W4404673110 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catlin Nalley

Notice bibliographique

RevueOncology Times · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCourse (navigation)MedicineMedical physicsPhysicsAstronomy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Breast Reconstruction: Breast ReconstructionA shorter course of radiation therapy does not lead to increased complications among patients undergoing breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, according to data from the Phase III RT CHARM trial (Alliance A221505). These findings, presented during the 2024 ASTRO Annual Meeting, showed that hypofractionated radiation is non-inferior to standard radiation following mastectomy for reconstruction complications, toxicity, and local control (Abstract 1). “More than 100,000 mastectomies are performed in the U.S. each year for breast cancer and almost 50 percent of the women who undergo mastectomy will have breast reconstruction performed,” noted Matthew Poppe, MD, FASTRO, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “Randomized trials tell us that radiation after mastectomy improves survival for a great many patients, such as those with larger tumors or involved lymph nodes,” he noted during a press conference. “Unfortunately, the standard-of-care radiation is not very convenient or cost-effective and takes 5-6 weeks. Many patients have to forgo this life-saving treatment given the time and expense involved.” Based on several randomized trials, hypofractionation, or short course, radiation has become standard practice in lumpectomy patients, according to Poppe. However, there is limited data on this approach in mastectomy and, particularly, breast reconstruction settings. Studying radiation effects in the reconstructed breast is difficult for a number of reasons, Poppe noted. There are a multitude of reconstruction methods, including implant, autologous tissue, and tissue expanders, and the timing of reconstruction can be immediate or delayed. Available data has shown that radiation after reconstruction can increase complication rates, with an estimated 20-30 percent of patients experiencing complications, such as wound healing, reoperation, infection, contracture, or even loss of the reconstructed breast. To address the lack of evidence regarding hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in this patient population, Poppe and colleagues initiated a non-inferiority, multi-institutional, prospective randomized trial. Research Methodology The Phase III RT CHARM study (Alliance A221505) compared hypofractionated radiation in 16 fractions to the standard 25 fractions in patients undergoing or having completed breast reconstruction. Composite reconstruction complication (i.e., wound healing, readmission, capsular contracture, unplanned reoperation, reconstruction failure) was the primary outcome of this analysis. Poppe and colleagues enrolled patients with unilateral invasive breast cancer, pT0-2 pN1-2 or pT3N0, or clinically staged before neoadjuvant chemotherapy who were planning delayed or immediate breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation therapy. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either conventional radiation consisting of 25 fractions delivered across 5 weeks (50 Gy total) or hypofractionated radiation consisting of 16 fractions delivered across approximately 3 weeks (42.56 Gy total). “The study was designed to test non-inferiority of hypofractionated to conventional PMRT with non-inferiority margin of 10 percent, assuming a complication rate of 25 percent in the conventional arm,” Poppe and team explained. “Accounting for 10 percent ineligibility, a sample size of 880 patients provided 90 percent power at one-sided type I error of 0.025 with one interim analysis. Randomization was stratified by planned immediate versus delayed and autologous versus implant-only reconstruction.” Main Takeaways From 2018 to 2021, 898 patients were enrolled from 209 academic and community-based cancer centers in the U.S. and Canada with a median follow-up of 4.5 years. Seventy-three women left the study before the primary event could be analyzed, according to the researchers. Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between both treatment arms. The median age was 49 years. Fifty-one percent of patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 37 percent underwent chemotherapy following mastectomy. Among the 825 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis, Poppe and colleagues reported that the rate of complications at 2 years was .2 percent and 14.2 percent in the conventional PMRT and hypofractionated PMRT arms, respectively. This difference was considered statistically non-inferior, according to Poppe. Data showed that noninferiority was maintained irrespective of the timing or type of reconstruction surgery. During the study period, 650 patients completed reconstruction. Of those, 59 percent had implants alone and 41 percent underwent autologous reconstruction using their own tissue, with or without implants. The investigators observed that the rate of complications at 2 years was 13.1 percent among patients who received conventional PMRT compared with 16.6 percent in those who underwent hypofractionated treatment. Local and local-regional recurrence rates are low in both arms at 3 years, Poppe reported. “The conventional fractionation has a 1.9 percent recurrence and the short course radiation a 1.5 percent recurrence—both are low and not statistically different.” Results from the Phase III RT CHARM trial demonstrated that a 16-fraction course of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation therapy appears safe and effective for patients undergoing breast reconstruction and is non-inferior to a traditional 25-fraction course of PMRT, according to Poppe. “Hypofractionated PMRT with reconstruction should become the new standard of therapy,” he said, while emphasizing that this change will improve the lives of breast cancer patients. “Over the past 10 years, we've tried to move all patients who need breast radiation to a shorter, more convenient schedule,” Poppe noted in a statement. “But patients after mastectomy who were planning breast reconstruction were the one group where we didn't have sufficient data to support shorter courses. Now, the results of this trial show we can safely reduce treatment time for these patients to 3 weeks without compromising their reconstruction. “There's been a slow start to moving to shorter treatment courses after mastectomy, even with no reconstruction,” he added. “But now we have robust data from hundreds of academic and community centers, and from patients with any type of reconstruction that clearly show the safety and effectiveness of short-course radiation.” Catlin Nalley is a contributing writer.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,936
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,682

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOncology TimesMême sujetAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyTravaux en français237 207