根据乳腺癌患者的人口学、病理和生物学因素,IORT(根治和增强剂量)和EBRT在无病生存期和总生存期方面的比较

IF 1.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
International Journal of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2021-04-16 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2021/2476527
Solmaz Hashemi, Seyedmohammadreza Javadi, Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari, Hamidreza Mirzaei, Seied Rabi Mahdavi
{"title":"根据乳腺癌患者的人口学、病理和生物学因素,IORT(根治和增强剂量)和EBRT在无病生存期和总生存期方面的比较","authors":"Solmaz Hashemi,&nbsp;Seyedmohammadreza Javadi,&nbsp;Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari,&nbsp;Hamidreza Mirzaei,&nbsp;Seied Rabi Mahdavi","doi":"10.1155/2021/2476527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The standard treatment for breast cancer is breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy. If external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can be safely replaced with intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), it will help patients to save their breast and to have equivocal or better results in DFS and overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 2022 patients with breast cancer treated during 6 years were enrolled in the current study. A total of 657, 376, and 989 patients received EBRT, radical, and boost dose by IORT, respectively, according to the IRIORT consensus protocol. The primary endpoint was recurrence and death. The secondary endpoint was the role of variables in recurrence and death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With a mean follow-up of 34.5 and 40.18 months for the IORT and EBRT groups, respectively, there was a significant difference in DFS between electron boost and X-ray boost groups (<i>P</i>=0.037) and the electron radical group compared with EBRT (<i>P</i>=0.025), but there was no significant difference between other boost and radical groups in DFS and OS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IORT can be a preferred treatment modality because of its noninferior outcomes, and in some special conditions, it has superior outcomes compared to EBRT, particularly in delivering radical dose with IORT.</p>","PeriodicalId":45960,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064796/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Solmaz Hashemi,&nbsp;Seyedmohammadreza Javadi,&nbsp;Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari,&nbsp;Hamidreza Mirzaei,&nbsp;Seied Rabi Mahdavi\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2021/2476527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The standard treatment for breast cancer is breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy. If external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can be safely replaced with intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), it will help patients to save their breast and to have equivocal or better results in DFS and overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 2022 patients with breast cancer treated during 6 years were enrolled in the current study. A total of 657, 376, and 989 patients received EBRT, radical, and boost dose by IORT, respectively, according to the IRIORT consensus protocol. The primary endpoint was recurrence and death. The secondary endpoint was the role of variables in recurrence and death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With a mean follow-up of 34.5 and 40.18 months for the IORT and EBRT groups, respectively, there was a significant difference in DFS between electron boost and X-ray boost groups (<i>P</i>=0.037) and the electron radical group compared with EBRT (<i>P</i>=0.025), but there was no significant difference between other boost and radical groups in DFS and OS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IORT can be a preferred treatment modality because of its noninferior outcomes, and in some special conditions, it has superior outcomes compared to EBRT, particularly in delivering radical dose with IORT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Surgical Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064796/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Surgical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2476527\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2476527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:乳腺癌的标准治疗是保乳手术(BCS)加放疗。如果外束放射治疗(EBRT)可以安全地取代术中放疗(IORT),将有助于患者保存乳房,并在DFS和总生存期(OS)方面取得模棱两可或更好的结果。方法:本研究共纳入2022例6年内接受治疗的乳腺癌患者。根据IORT共识协议,共有657,376和989名患者分别接受了EBRT,根治和增强剂量IORT。主要终点是复发和死亡。次要终点是复发和死亡变量的作用。结果:IORT组和EBRT组的平均随访时间分别为34.5个月和40.18个月,与EBRT组相比,电子增强组和x射线增强组的DFS (P=0.037)和电子自由基组的DFS和OS (P=0.025)差异有统计学意义,而其他增强组和自由基组的DFS和OS差异无统计学意义。结论:IORT因其良好的预后而成为首选的治疗方式,在某些特殊情况下,与EBRT相比,IORT的预后更好,特别是在提供根治剂量方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer.

Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer.

Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer.

Comparison of IORT (Radical and Boost Dose) and EBRT in Terms of Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival according to Demographic, Pathologic, and Biological Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer.

Background: The standard treatment for breast cancer is breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy. If external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can be safely replaced with intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), it will help patients to save their breast and to have equivocal or better results in DFS and overall survival (OS).

Methods: A total of 2022 patients with breast cancer treated during 6 years were enrolled in the current study. A total of 657, 376, and 989 patients received EBRT, radical, and boost dose by IORT, respectively, according to the IRIORT consensus protocol. The primary endpoint was recurrence and death. The secondary endpoint was the role of variables in recurrence and death.

Results: With a mean follow-up of 34.5 and 40.18 months for the IORT and EBRT groups, respectively, there was a significant difference in DFS between electron boost and X-ray boost groups (P=0.037) and the electron radical group compared with EBRT (P=0.025), but there was no significant difference between other boost and radical groups in DFS and OS.

Conclusions: IORT can be a preferred treatment modality because of its noninferior outcomes, and in some special conditions, it has superior outcomes compared to EBRT, particularly in delivering radical dose with IORT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Surgical Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of surgical oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信