Adoption of Hypofractionated and Ultrahypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer Across Main and Community Centers Within a Single Healthcare System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose/Objective(s): Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment in the management of patients with breast cancer. Evidence supports both standard fractionation and, more recently, moderate hypofractionation and ultra hypofractionation leading to a potential diversity of clinical practice. Whether or not physicians at main academic centers adopt hypofractionated regimens more readily than those working at community centers is not known. Practice patterns were analyzed within our large healthcare network comprising one main and eight community sites before and after 2020. Materials/Methods: Patients treated with adjuvant breast RT between 2017 and 2022 in our radiation oncology department were identified. Treatment techniques were evaluated: standard fractionation (25–28 fractions to 50–50.4 Gy), moderate hypofractionation (15–16 fractions to 40.05–42.56 Gy), and ultra hypofractionation (5 fractions of 26–30 Gy) for intact breast, partial breast, and chest wall cases. Use of each technique was compared between the main academic center (Main) versus eight community sites (Community) in two time periods, 2017–2019 and 2020–2022. Differences were assessed using z-ratios for the difference between independent proportions. Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in the use of standard fractionation for intact breast and chest wall cases from the early to the late period at both the community sites and the main center; however, a higher proportion of patients were treated with standard fractionation at the community sites versus the main center in the late period (7.8% community versus 2.0% main, p < 0.01 for intact breast and 80.7% community versus 37.4% main, p < 0.01 for chest wall). There was a statistically significant increase in the use of hypofractionation for intact breast and chest wall cases from the early to the late period at both the community sites and the main center; however, a higher proportion of patients were treated with hypofractionation at the main center versus the community sites during the late period (92.2% community versus 98.0% main, p < 0.01 for intact breast and 19.3% community versus 62.6% main, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The present study shows that recent trial evidence supporting the use of shorter RT treatments changed practice among providers more rapidly at our main academic center versus our community sites. The reasons for this difference are not known; however, standardization of treatment by implementation of an adjuvant RT treatment algorithm may facilitate uniform care among patients with breast cancer and we are investigating the impact of this approach.
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».