Background and purpose: We aimed to assess the prescription preference about hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for breast cancer (BC) patients amongst radiation oncologists (ROs) practicing in Europe and to identify restraints on HFRT utilisation. Materials and methods: An online survey was circulated amongst ROs in Europe through personal, RO and BC societies’ networks, from October 2019 to March 2020. The statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-squared testing, and logistic regression analysis. Results: We received 412 responses from 44 countries. HFRT was chosen as the preferred schedule for whole breast irradiation (WBI) by 54.7% and for WBI with regional nodes irradiation (RNI) by 28.7% of the responding ROs. In the case of postmastectomy RT with or without reconstruction, HFRT was preferred by 21.1% and 29.6%, respectively. Overall, 69.2% of the responding ROs selected at least one factor influencing the decision to utilise HFRT, the most frequent of which included age (51.4%), RNI (46.9%), internal mammary lymph nodes irradiation (39.7%), BC stage (33.5%) and implant-based breast reconstruction (31.6%). ROs working in academic centres (odds ratio, (OR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval, (CI); 1.1–2.6, p = 0.019), practicing in Western Europe (OR, 4.2; 95%CI; 2.7–6.6, p < 0.0005) and/or dedicating >50% of clinical time to BC patients (OR, 2.5; 95%CI; 1.5–4.2, p = 0.001) more likely preferred HFRT. Conclusion: Although HFRT is recognised as a new standard, its implementation in routine RT clinical practice across Europe varies for numerous reasons. Better dissemination of evidence-based recommendations is advised to improve the level of awareness about this clinical indication.

Hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer: Preferences amongst radiation oncologists in Europe – Results from an international survey

Franco P.
Co-ultimo
Conceptualization
;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Background and purpose: We aimed to assess the prescription preference about hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for breast cancer (BC) patients amongst radiation oncologists (ROs) practicing in Europe and to identify restraints on HFRT utilisation. Materials and methods: An online survey was circulated amongst ROs in Europe through personal, RO and BC societies’ networks, from October 2019 to March 2020. The statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-squared testing, and logistic regression analysis. Results: We received 412 responses from 44 countries. HFRT was chosen as the preferred schedule for whole breast irradiation (WBI) by 54.7% and for WBI with regional nodes irradiation (RNI) by 28.7% of the responding ROs. In the case of postmastectomy RT with or without reconstruction, HFRT was preferred by 21.1% and 29.6%, respectively. Overall, 69.2% of the responding ROs selected at least one factor influencing the decision to utilise HFRT, the most frequent of which included age (51.4%), RNI (46.9%), internal mammary lymph nodes irradiation (39.7%), BC stage (33.5%) and implant-based breast reconstruction (31.6%). ROs working in academic centres (odds ratio, (OR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval, (CI); 1.1–2.6, p = 0.019), practicing in Western Europe (OR, 4.2; 95%CI; 2.7–6.6, p < 0.0005) and/or dedicating >50% of clinical time to BC patients (OR, 2.5; 95%CI; 1.5–4.2, p = 0.001) more likely preferred HFRT. Conclusion: Although HFRT is recognised as a new standard, its implementation in routine RT clinical practice across Europe varies for numerous reasons. Better dissemination of evidence-based recommendations is advised to improve the level of awareness about this clinical indication.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
definitive.pdf

file ad accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.14 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.14 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11579/136648
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 28
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 25
social impact