Second malignancy probabilities in patients with breast cancer treated with conventional versus hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy in the adjuvant setting Journal Article
| Authors: | Patel, T. A.; Jain, B.; Cho, H. L.; Corti, C.; Vapiwala, N.; Chino, F.; Leeman, J. E.; Dee, E. C. |
| Article Title: | Second malignancy probabilities in patients with breast cancer treated with conventional versus hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy in the adjuvant setting |
| Abstract: | Aims: For women with breast cancer, seminal studies have shown that adjuvant hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (hEBRT) maintains similar outcomes and may reduce overall costs compared with conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT). However, it is unclear whether hEBRT may be associated with differential risk of development of radiation-induced second malignancies compared with cEBRT. Because the occurrence of second malignancies is small, large databases may improve our understanding of the relative risk of second malignancies between hEBRT and cEBRT. Materials and methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we carried out a retrospective cohort analysis of women diagnosed with non-metastatic, stage 0–III breast cancer from 2004 to 2017. All patients had a lumpectomy or mastectomy and a follow-up time of at least 60 months after diagnosis. The probability of second malignancies in women receiving adjuvant cEBRT or hEBRT was compared using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic, geographical, clinical and treatment factors, allowing for relative (but not absolute) comparison of second malignancy risk. Temporal sensitivity analyses stratified by year of diagnosis and length of follow-up time were also conducted. Results: Of the 125 228 women in our study, 115 576 (92.3%) received cEBRT and 9652 (7.71%) received hEBRT. The median age of the cohort was 60 (interquartile range 51–68) years at diagnosis and the median follow-up time was 99.61 (interquartile range 77.5–128.49) months. Upon adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, patients who received hEBRT had no difference in relative risk than patients who received cEBRT (odds ratio 0.937, 95% confidence interval 0.869–1.010, P = 0.091). In analyses stratified by year of diagnosis, and stratified by length of follow-up, there was no difference in second malignancy probability between patients who completed hEBRT and patients who completed cEBRT. Conclusions: In this analysis of over 120 000 women with non-metastatic breast cancer, hEBRT was not associated with different odds of developing second malignancies compared with cEBRT. Our findings may inform patient counselling in the choice of radiation regimens for breast cancer and further support the safety of hypofractionated regimens for breast cancer. © 2023 |
| Keywords: | adult; controlled study; preschool child; aged; child, preschool; middle aged; retrospective studies; major clinical study; postoperative period; cancer risk; radiotherapy, adjuvant; cancer staging; follow up; demography; breast cancer; mastectomy; cohort analysis; pathology; breast neoplasms; retrospective study; risk; confidence interval; probability; breast tumor; dependent variable; external beam radiotherapy; neoplasms, second primary; adjuvant radiotherapy; hypofractionation; lumpectomy; second malignancy; external beam radiation therapy; hypofractionated radiotherapy; humans; human; female; article; sociodemographics; second primary neoplasm; conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy; hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy |
| Journal Title: | Clinical Oncology |
| Volume: | 36 |
| Issue: | 3 |
| ISSN: | 0936-6555 |
| Publisher: | Elsevier Science, Inc. |
| Date Published: | 2024-03-01 |
| Start Page: | 183 |
| End Page: | 192 |
| Language: | English |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.clon.2023.12.002 |
| PUBMED: | 38184401 |
| PROVIDER: | scopus |
| PMCID: | PMC11380110 |
| DOI/URL: | |
| Notes: | The MSK Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) is acknowledged in PubMed and PDF. Corresponding MSK author is Edward Christopher Dee -- Source: Scopus |
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
Related MSK Work