Abstract P1-15-10: Low utilization of hypofractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Large randomized controlled trials have shown that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) is not inferior to or more toxic than conventionally fractionated whole breast irradiation (CF-WBI) for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Royal Marsden data were published in 2006 (10-yr), the Ontario trial was reported in 2002 (5-yr) and 2010 (10-yr), and the UK START trials were published in 2006 (5-yr) and 2013 (10-yr). We utilized the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to evaluate patterns of radiotherapy fractionation for early-stage, node-negative breast cancer in the U.S. We hypothesized that HF-WBI use would increase over time in response to emerging data supporting its use in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of women >18 years diagnosed with T1-2N0 invasive breast carcinoma and treated with breast-conserving surgery between 2004 and 2011. Radiotherapy was categorized as accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI; 38-40 Gy/1-10 fractions), HF-WBI (40-56 Gy/15-24 fractions) or CF-WBI (50-66 Gy/25-40 fractions). Patients treated with alternate fractionation were excluded. Patterns of breast radiotherapy fractionation were compared using the chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for patients diagnosed in 2011, the year with the highest levels of HF-WBI utilization. Results: 217,789 patients in the NCDB met inclusion criteria. HF-WBI use increased over time, rising from 2.1% among eligible patients in 2004 to 15.1% in 2011, while APBI use remained low at <2%. Utilization of HF-WBI was significantly higher in academic centers than comprehensive community cancer centers and community-based cancer centers (p <0.0001). This pattern persisted when controlling for T-stage, hormone receptor/HER2-status, diagnosis year, and patient age >30 years. Table 1 shows frequency of HF-WBI use over time by center type. On multivariate analysis of patients diagnosed in 2011, the following factors were associated with higher use of HF-WBI: treatment at an academic center, older patient age, hormone receptor positivity, pT1 tumor size, and rural residence (Table 2). Table 1: % HF-WBI use Community Cancer CenterComprehensive Community Cancer CenterAcademic Center20040.9%1.7%3.8%20051.6%2.1%3.8%20061.2%2.0%4.6%20071.5%2.8%7.1%20082.9%5.3%10.8%20093.9%8.5%14.7%20105.8%10.7%16.4%20119.6%13.9%20.5% Table 2. Multivariate analysis, year 2011 (n=5568) OR95% CIAcademic Center vs. Community Cancer Center3.062.324.02Academic Center vs. Comprehensive Community Cancer Center1.781.532.08Patient age, 50-90 vs. 18-492.371.863.01T2 vs. T10.540.460.63HER2+ vs. Hormone Receptor +/HER2-0.750.590.97ER-/PR-/HER2- vs. Hormone Receptor +/HER2-0.660.520.84Rural vs. urban2.681.694.24 Conclusions: Utilization of HF-WBI in the US is rising, but remains low overall despite level I evidence showing its non-inferiority to CF-WBI. Given the advantages of HF-WBI in terms of patient convenience and potential healthcare system costs, further research is indicated to explore disparities in HF-WBI utilization in the US and to guide education of breast cancer providers. Citation Format: Yvonne M Mowery, Rachel A Greenup, Kevin Houck, Manisha Palta, Janet K Horton, Eun-Sil S Hwang, Julie A Sosa, Rachel C Blitzblau. Low utilization of hypofractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the US [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-15-10.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".