ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most women with breast cancer who undergo breast-conserving surgery receive whole-breast irradiation. We examined whether the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation improved outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer who were treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy to undergo either whole-breast irradiation plus regional nodal irradiation (including internal mammary, supraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes) (nodal-irradiation group) or whole-breast irradiation alone (control group). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, isolated locoregional disease-free survival, and distant disease-free survival. RESULTS: Between March 2000 and February 2007, a total of 1832 women were assigned to the nodal-irradiation group or the control group (916 women in each group). The median follow-up was 9.5 years. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no significant between-group difference in survival, with a rate of 82.8% in the nodal-irradiation group and 81.8% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.13; P=0.38). The rates of disease-free survival were 82.0% in the nodal-irradiation group and 77.0% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients in the nodal-irradiation group had higher rates of grade 2 or greater acute pneumonitis (1.2% vs. 0.2%, P=0.01) and lymphedema (8.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer, the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation did not improve overall survival but reduced the rate of breast-cancer recurrence. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; MA.20 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00005957.).
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Lymphatic Metastasis/radiotherapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Mastectomy, Segmental , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/prevention & control , Neoplasm Staging , Radiation Dosage , Radiotherapy/adverse effects , Risk , Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To study the wait times for cancer patients from the time of diagnosis to consultation with a radiation oncologist (T1), from consultation to radiotherapy (T2) and from diagnosis to radiotherapy (T3) in the context of treatment practices and measurement issues. METHODS: From 1992 to 2000, we studied 6585 Nova Scotian patients over the age of 24 years with a diagnosis of breast, lung, colorectal or prostate cancer who received radiotherapy within 1 year of diagnosis. Multivariate analyses examined associations between wait time and diagnosis year, age, sex, median household income (MHI), distance to the cancer centre and extent of disease. Univariate findings reported are median times and interquartile ranges. RESULTS: The T3 was 16 weeks for breast and colorectal cancer, 6 weeks for lung cancer and 18 weeks for prostate cancer. The greatest T1 decrease over time was for prostate cancer: 13-8 weeks (hazards ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.10). The T2 increased for all cancers, and the T3 increased from 5 to 7 weeks for lung cancer, from 17 to 22 weeks for prostate cancer and from 10 to 18 weeks for breast cancer, with no change for colorectal cancer. The T3 decreased by age for breast cancer (HR = 1.12, CI = 1.10-1.14) and prostate cancer (HR = 1.07, CI = 1.02-1.11), showed no consistent association with distance to a cancer centre and varied by extent of disease. Patients with localized lung disease had a longer T3 than those with distant disease, but the opposite results were noted for patients with breast cancer. The T3 was greater for regional than distant disease in lung and breast cancers. Sex and MHI had no effect. CONCLUSION: Wait times reflected clinical practice, and there were no adverse patterns related to age, sex, income or distance from a cancer centre.