Article

Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Clinical Trial Service Unit (CTSU), Richard Doll Bldg, Old Road Campus, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom. .
JNCI Monographs 01/2010; 2010(41):162-77.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Individual patient data were available for all four of the randomized trials that began before 1995, and that compared adjuvant radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A total of 3729 women were eligible for analysis. Radiotherapy reduced the absolute 10-year risk of any ipsilateral breast event (ie, either recurrent DCIS or invasive cancer) by 15.2% (SE 1.6%, 12.9% vs 28.1% 2 P <.00001), and it was effective regardless of the age at diagnosis, extent of breast-conserving surgery, use of tamoxifen, method of DCIS detection, margin status, focality, grade, comedonecrosis, architecture, or tumor size. The proportional reduction in ipsilateral breast events was greater in older than in younger women (2P < .0004 for difference between proportional reductions; 10-year absolute risks: 18.5% vs 29.1% at ages <50 years, 10.8% vs 27.8% at ages ≥ 50 years) but did not differ significantly according to any other available factor. Even for women with negative margins and small low-grade tumors, the absolute reduction in the 10-year risk of ipsilateral breast events was 18.0% (SE 5.5, 12.1% vs 30.1%, 2P = .002). After 10 years of follow-up, there was, however, no significant effect on breast cancer mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, or all-cause mortality.

1 Follower
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early stage breast cancer should preferably have a negative resection margin prior to postoperative radiation in order to minimize the risk for local recurrence. However, selected patients with focal margin involvement are still reasonable candidates for radiation without re-excision, particularly when the margin is at an anatomic boundary of the breast. Routine use of re-excision for close margins
    04/2015; 3(4). DOI:10.1007/s40137-015-0084-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lobular carcinomas in situ (LCIS) represent 1-2% of all breast cancers. Both significance and treatment remain widely debated, as well as the possible similarities with DCIS. Two hundred patients with pure LCIS were retrospectively analyzed in seven centres from 1990 to 2008. Median age was 52 years; 176 patients underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and 24 mastectomy. Seventeen patients received whole breast irradiation (WBRT) after BCS and 20 hormonal treatment (15 by tamoxifen). With a 144-month median follow-up (FU), there were no local recurrences (LR) among 24 patients treated by mastectomy. With the same FU, 3 late LR out of 17 (17%) occurred in patients treated by BCS and WBRT (with no LR at 10 years). Among 159 patients treated by BCS alone, 20 developed LR (13%), but with only a 72-month FU (17.5% at 10 years). No specific LR risk factors were identified. Three patients developed metastases, two after invasive LR; 22 patients (11%) developed contralateral BC (59% invasive) and another five had second cancer. LCIS is not always an indolent disease. The long-term outcome is quite similar to most ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS). The main problems are the accuracy of pathological definition and a clear identification of more aggressive subtypes, in order to avoid further invasive LR. BCS + WBRT should be discussed in some selected cases, and the long-term results seem comparable to DCIS.
    Radiation Oncology 05/2015; 10(1):110. DOI:10.1186/s13014-015-0379-7 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To establish the extent to which systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) are being used to inform the recommendations included in published clinical guidelines. Descriptive study. Database maintained by the Cochrane IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group, supplemented by records of published IPD meta-analyses held in a separate database. A test sample of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included a meta-analysis of IPD, and a separate sample of clinical guidelines, matched to the IPD meta-analyses according to medical condition, interventions, populations, and dates of publication. Descriptive information on each guideline was extracted along with evidence showing use or critical appraisal, or both, of the IPD meta-analysis within the guideline; recommendations based directly on its findings and the use of other systematic reviews in the guideline. Based on 33 IPD meta-analyses and 177 eligible, matched clinical guidelines there was evidence that IPD meta-analyses were being under-utilised. Only 66 guidelines (37%) cited a matched IPD meta-analysis. Around a third of these (n=22, 34%) had critically appraised the IPD meta-analysis. Recommendations based directly on the matched IPD meta-analyses were identified for only 18 of the 66 guidelines (27%). For the guidelines that did not cite a matched IPD meta-analysis (n=111, 63%), search dates had preceded the publication of the IPD meta-analysis in 23 cases (21%); however, for the remainder, there was no obvious reasons why the IPD meta-analysis had not been cited. Our results indicate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on IPD are being under-utilised. Guideline developers should routinely seek good quality and up to date IPD meta-analyses to inform guidelines. Increased use of IPD meta-analyses could lead to improved guidelines ensuring that routine patient care is based on the most reliable evidence available. © Vale et al 2015.
    BMJ Clinical Research 03/2015; 350(mar06 6):h1088. DOI:10.1136/bmj.h1088 · 14.09 Impact Factor