Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 95, Issue 3 , Pages 317-320, June 2010

Local control with conventional and hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in-situ

  • Deborah Williamson

      Affiliations

    • Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
  • ,
  • Robert Dinniwell

      Affiliations

    • Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
  • ,
  • Sharon Fung

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • ,
  • Melania Pintilie

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • ,
  • Susan J. Done

      Affiliations

    • Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology and Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Canada
  • ,
  • Anthony W. Fyles

      Affiliations

    • Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Ave., Toronto, Canada M5G2M9.

Received 18 December 2009; received in revised form 18 March 2010; accepted 29 March 2010. published online 20 April 2010.

Abstract 

Purpose

Adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) improves local control, however an optimal dose fractionation remains undefined. WBRT following breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer demonstrates equivalent efficacy and morbidity for conventional and hypofractionated treatment. Our group policy allowed for the use of both schedules, therefore we compared local control in women with DCIS following breast-conserving surgery.

Patients and methods

Two hundred and sixty-six patients treated between January 1999 and December 2004 with conventional (50Gy in 25 fractions) or hypofractionated (42.4Gy in 16 fractions or 40Gy/16+12.5Gy boost) WBRT after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS were retrospectively reviewed. Median follow-up was 3.76years (range 0.1–8.9years).

Results

One hundred and four patients (39%) were treated with conventional and 162 (61%) with hypofractionated WBRT. The median age was 56.7years (range 32.2–83.8years), and prognostic features were well matched in both groups, apart from a small increase in tumour size in the conventional arm (1.75 vs. 2.12cm, p=0.05). Actuarial risk of recurrence at 4years was 7% with hypofractionated WBRT and 6% with the conventional schedule (p=0.9). Univariate analysis showed an increased risk of recurrence with high nuclear grade tumours (11% at 4years for grade 3 vs. 4% for grade 1/2, p=0.029).

Conclusions

Hypofractionated adjuvant WBRT following breast-conserving surgery for DCIS has comparable local control to a conventional radiation schedule. Hypofractionated WBRT is more convenient for patients, has equivalent morbidity and should be considered in this patient group.

Keywords: Ductal carcinoma in situ, Radiotherapy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This work was supported by the Phyllis Hantho Breast Cancer Research Fund and was presented in part at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec. 2008.

PII: S0167-8140(10)00206-9

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2010.03.021

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 95, Issue 3 , Pages 317-320, June 2010