Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 2, 2019

Effectiveness of different accelerated partial breast irradiation techniques for the treatment of breast cancer patients: Systematic review using indirect comparisons of randomized clinical trials

Gustavo Nader Marta, Jessica Barrett, Gustavo José Martiniano Porfirio, Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco, Rachel Riera

Summary:

Aim This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of different accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) techniques for the treatment of breast cancer patients. Background Numerous (APBI) techniques are available for clinical practice. Methods and materials Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of APBI versus whole breast irradiation (WBI). The data from APBI studies were extracted for the analyses. Indirect comparisons were used to compare different APBI techniques. Results Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 4343 patients were included, most of them with tumor stage T1-T2 and N0. Regarding APBI techniques, six trials used external beam radiation therapy; one intraoperative electrons; one intraoperative low-energy photons; one brachytherapy; and one external beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy. The indirect comparisons related to 5-years local control and 5-years overall survival were not significantly different between APBI techniques. Conclusions Based on indirect comparisons, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed among diverse APBI techniques in published clinical trials that formally compared WBI to APBI. However wide confidence intervals and high risk of inconsistency precluded a sound conclusion. Further head-to-head clinical trials comparing different APBI techniques are required to confirm our findings. Studies comparing different techniques using individual participant data and/or real-life data from population-based studies/registries could also provide more robust results.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(2) : 165-174


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2