ライフサイエンスコーパス: IBTR

1 IBTR risk at 10 years is similar in BRCA1/2 carriers tre

2 IBTRs were broken down by time to recurrence to determin

3 At primary definitive analysis, 114 IBTR events occurred: RT arm, 63 and RT plus T arm, 51 (

4 analysis was to be conducted when either 163 IBTR events occurred or all accrued patients were on stu

5 median follow-up of 74 months there were 76 IBTR events (20 for the control group, 21 for test group

6 factors was associated with 5-year actuarial IBTR-free and LRR-free survival rates of 87% to 91% and

7 RT reduced adjusted IBTR rates by 62% (P = 0.002) for all patients; 83% for

8 e likely to develop metastatic disease after IBTR.

9 The 5-year OS after IBTR and oLRR were 76.6% and 34.9%, respectively.

10 vival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS) after IBTR or oLRR.

11 The 5-year DDFS rates after IBTR and oLRR were 51.4% and 18.8%, respectively.

12 The 5-year OS rates after IBTR and oLRR were 59.9% and 24.1%, respectively.

13 Of 32 patients who developed an IBTR within 4 years of original diagnosis, 16 (50%) deve

14 r patients treated with LRT who developed an IBTR within the prior irradiated breast and who were wil

15 independently seem to reduce the risk for an IBTR.

16 in the whole-breast irradiation group had an IBTR (HR 1.22, 90% CI 0.94-1.58).

17 y results in acceptably low rates of LRR and IBTR in appropriately selected patients, even those with

18 ace invasion predict higher rates of LRR and IBTR.

19 of local-regional or distant metastases and IBTR decreased after either therapy.

20 All patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and IBTR underwent successful surgical salvage mastectomy at

21 Annual IBTR event rates were: RT arm, 0.99%/y and RT plus T arm

22 edictive variables that classify patients by IBTR risk, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to calcu

23 ing recurrence of ipsilateral breast cancer (IBTR) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

24 We classified IBTRs as NP or TR on the basis of either tumor location

25 Studies have attempted to classify IBTR by using tumor location, histologic subtype, DNA fl

26 ferent features, suggesting that classifying IBTR may provide clinically significant data for the man

27 In women with tumors </= 1 cm, IBTR occurs with enough frequency after lumpectomy to ju

28 CONCLUSION IBTR! version 2.0 is accurate in the majority of patient

29 e to whole-breast irradiation in controlling IBTR for breast-conserving therapy.

30 The 10-year cumulative IBTR incidence in early breast cancer treated with exter

31 clear margins do not significantly decrease IBTR compared with 2 mm margins.

32 tistically significant benefit in decreasing IBTR across all DCIS age groups, similar to that seen in

33 e an added incremental benefit in decreasing IBTR after a shared discussion between the patient and h

34 n of 973 patients, 73 patients had developed IBTR and 134 had developed distant metastases.

35 ositive breast cancer patients who developed IBTR or oLRR had significantly poorer prognoses than pat

36 It appears that early IBTR is a significant predictor for distant metastases.

37 .0%) experienced LRF: 342 (9.0%) experienced IBTR, and 77 (2.0%) experienced oLRR.

38 vation therapy from 1970 to 2005 experienced IBTR.

39 locoregional failure; 259 (9.7%) experienced IBTR, and 165 (6.2%) experienced oLRR.

40 ared with patients who had never experienced IBTR.

41 ses, including whether a patient experienced IBTR.

42 rate was higher in patients who experienced IBTR compared with patients who had never experienced IB

43 ly onset breast cancer patients experiencing IBTR have a disproportionately high frequency of deleter

44 There have been too few IBTR events to trigger an efficacy analysis.

45 failures occurred within 5 years (62.2% for IBTR and 80.6% for oLRR).

46 Multivariate analyses for IBTR found BRCA1/2 mutation status to be an independent

47 EIC was an independent factor for IBTR for ages </= 55 years.

48 55 years was the most significant factor for IBTR.

49 oma were the most important risk factors for IBTR.

50 Predictive models for IBTR in patients with DCIS who were treated with local e

51 but IGF-IR expression was not prognostic for IBTR from breast cancer patients with late relapses (P w

52 eight (15%) of 52 breast cancer patients had IBTR with deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations.

53 There was no significant difference in IBTR overall between carriers and controls; 10- and 15-y

54 ot achieve the objective of 36% reduction in IBTR rate but did achieve a modest but statistically non

55 primary outcome of invasive and non-invasive IBTR as a first recurrence was analysed in the intention

56 patients treated with LRT who developed late IBTR.

57 to create and validate a modified nomogram, IBTR! version 2.0.

58 The predicted and observed IBTR estimates were: group 1 (n = 283): 2.2% versus 1.3%

59 o provide an individualized risk estimate of IBTR in a woman with DCIS treated with BCS.

60 Individualized estimation of IBTR risk would assist in decision making regarding the

61 In B-13, the frequency of IBTR was 2.6% following M-->F versus 13.4% in women trea

62 Cumulative incidence of IBTR and of CBC was computed accounting for competing ri

63 The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR and oLRR was 8.7% and 6.0%, respectively.

64 The 20-year cumulative incidence of IBTR in 1616 patients (160 events observed) was 15% (95%

65 alysis (HR, 1.99; P = .04); the incidence of IBTR in carriers who had undergone oophorectomy was not

66 Cumulative incidence of IBTR through 8 years was 16.5% with TAM, 9.3% with XRT a

67 The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 2.5% (n = 6) in the WBI and 3.7% (n = 9) in the

68 The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 4.6% (95% CI 3.7-5.7) in the APBI group versus

69 an 1% in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some w

70 The 12-year cumulative incidences of IBTR and oLRR in patients treated with adjuvant systemic

71 5-year results concluded non-inferiority of IBTR for reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, w

72 cally significant data for the management of IBTR.

73 ndex (BMI), larger tumors, and occurrence of IBTR or oLRR were significantly associated with increase

74 ing Cancer Center nomogram for prediction of IBTR were assessed for 734 patients who had complete dat

75 , 0.38 to 0.80; P = .002) were predictive of IBTR.

76 ion status to be an independent predictor of IBTR when carriers who had undergone oophorectomy were r

77 lt into a nomogram estimating probability of IBTR at 5 and 10 years after BCS.

78 IBTR without RT, and RT reduced the rate of IBTR as a first event after 10 years (20% v 6%; P = .008

79 ns do not significantly decrease the rate of IBTR compared with no ink on tumor.

80 acebo resulted in a 49% lower hazard rate of IBTR than did TAM alone; XRT and TAM resulted in a 63% l

81 sulted in an 81% reduction in hazard rate of IBTR.

82 ed with WBRT is associated with low rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates

83 nary therapy is associated with low rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates

84 ectomy, and factors known to impact rates of IBTR should be considered in determining the need for re

85 Rates of IBTR, distant recurrence, and contralateral breast cance

86 Five-year actuarial rates of IBTR-free and LRR-free survival were 95% and 91%, respec

87 ariate analysis for association with risk of IBTR and added value of RT.

88 ) and antiestrogen agents reduce the risk of IBTR and are considered standard treatment options after

89 yed PM was associated with a reduced risk of IBTR but not with overall survival or breast cancer-spec

90 ated with a two-fold increase in the risk of IBTR compared with negative margins.

91 Results Negative margins halve the risk of IBTR compared with positive margins defined as ink on DC

92 A 2 mm margin minimizes the risk of IBTR compared with smaller negative margins.

93 ed in a greater absolute decrease in risk of IBTR for patients 36 to 55 years old.

94 1) were associated with an increased risk of IBTR in multivariable analysis.

95 ttering Cancer Center to predict for risk of IBTR in patients with DCIS from our institution.

96 ctors with the greatest influence on risk of IBTR in the model included adjuvant RT or endocrine ther

97 near the margin was associated with risk of IBTR in the no RT group (HR = 3.37, P = 0.002) and great

98 ive tumors receiving tamoxifen had a risk of IBTR of 5%, but had a 20% risk without tamoxifen.

99 Despite margins of >or=10 mm, the risk of IBTR remains substantial in patients with DCIS.

100 Patients </= 35 years old had a low risk of IBTR when tumors were EIC-negative with negative margins

101 al low-risk group did not have a low risk of IBTR without RT, and RT reduced the rate of IBTR as a fi

102 larger benefit from RT regarding the risk of IBTR.

103 l surgical salvage mastectomy at the time of IBTR and remain alive without evidence of local or syste

104 Overall, 37.1% of IBTRs and 72.7% of oLRRs occurred within 5 years of diag

105 Effect of RT on IBTR risk is influenced by both margin width and number

106 with risk of contralateral breast cancer or IBTR.

107 years had actuarial 10- and 15-year overall IBTR rates of 22% and 29%, respectively.

108 PURPOSE IBTR! version 1.0 is a web-based tool that uses literatu

109 risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is relativel

110 predict ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT).

111 isk for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after local excision of ductal carcinoma in situ (

112 ates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after lumpectomy were similar in both groups (7.9%

113 ts were rates of in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and contralateral breast cancers (CBCs).

114 nces of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and other locoregional recurrence (oLRR) were calc

115 nces of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and other locoregional recurrence (oLRR) were calc

116 ence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) as a first event within 10 years for luminal A-lik

117 Time to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) as first event.

118 ence in ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) between 30 Gy in 5 once-daily fractions (APBI arm)

119 ed with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) following lumpectomy and radiation therapy (P = 0.

120 dth and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 20 studies including 7

121 dth and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 33 studies including 2

122 e RT on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in a large randomized trial.

123 isk for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in early-stage breast cancer.

124 rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in such women, and by the thesis that both modalit

125 compare ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in women with DCIS treated with vs without the RT

126 tors of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) may change over time following breast-conserving t

127 tality, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), contralateral breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and

128 lity of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR).

129 ome was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR).

130 risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR).

131 L) and ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) outcomes in this population.

132 reases ipsilateral breast-tumour recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy.

133 isk of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR).

134 elapse (ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence [IBTR]) of 10% to 15%.

135 idence that more widely clear margins reduce IBTR for young patients or for those with unfavorable bi

136 mained significantly associated with reduced IBTR (HR compared with no boost, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.91

137 XRT reduced IBTR below the level achieved with TAM alone, regardless

138 point was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR) analysed by intention to treat; assuming 5% 5-year

139 Results IBTR! version 2.0 predicted an overall 10-year IBTR esti

140 After breast-conservation therapy, IBTR may be classified into 2 distinct types (NP and TR)

141 s pathological prognostic factors related to IBTR using long-term follow-up.

142 utcome of treatment with LRT with respect to IBTR has not been determined.

143 The median time to IBTR for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations was 7.8 years c

144 Furthermore, the time to IBTR had a significant effect on distant metastases.

145 The relatively long time to IBTR, as well as the histologic and clinical criteria, s

146 The primary endpoint was IBTR.

147 patients had developed LRR, 16 of which were IBTRs.

148 ix (40%) of 15 of patients under age 40 with IBTR found to have BRCA1/2 mutations, only one (6.6%) of

149 In a multivariable regression analysis with IBTR as dependent variable and RT, TILs, subtype, age, a

150 vels of IGF-IR were strongly associated with IBTR (P = 0.004) but IGF-IR expression was not prognosti

151 Hazard ratios for mortality associated with IBTR and oLRR were 2.58 (95% CI, 2.11 to 3.15) and 5.85

152 hazard ratios for mortality associated with IBTR and oLRR were significantly higher in estrogen rece

153 or status were significantly associated with IBTR.

154 rrelated with LRR but did not correlate with IBTR (5-year IBTR-free rates of 96% v 92%, respectively,

155 Variables that positively correlated with IBTR and LRR were clinical N2 or N3 disease, pathologic

156 clinical and pathologic factors jointly with IBTR or oLRR as time-varying predictors.

157 ns in a study of breast cancer patients with IBTR treated with LRT.

158 ge, there were six (40%) of 15 patients with IBTR under age 40 with BRCA1/2 mutations, one (9.0%) of

159 ssociation of high-grade invasive tumor with IBTR diminished during follow-up, while the effect of DC

160 ast cancer patients treated with LRT without IBTR.

161 6.6%) of 15 matched control patients without IBTR and had a BRCA1/2 mutation (P =.03).

162 TR! version 2.0 predicted an overall 10-year IBTR estimate of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8 to 4.2), while the ob

163 The estimated absolute difference in 10-year IBTR incidence was -1.02% (95% CI -1.98 to 0.99) for the

164 ative margins were associated with a 10-year IBTR of 3%; with close (</= 2 mm) or positive margins, 3

165 IS nomogram for prediction of 5- and 10-year IBTR probabilities demonstrated good calibration and dis

166 he nomogram for prediction of 5- and 10-year IBTR probabilities demonstrated imperfect calibration an

167 o 9 mm, and >or=10 mm, the actuarial 10-year IBTR rates were 28%, 21%, and 19%, respectively.

168 ents more than 55 years old had a 4% 10-year IBTR, the only further division being use of tamoxifen o

169 5-year IBTR incidence was 1.9% (95% CI 1.2 to 3.1) for the cont

170 In all groups 5-year IBTR incidence was lower than the 5% originally expected

171 30-item core module at 24 months, and 5-year IBTR rates (not reported here).

172 LRR but did not correlate with IBTR (5-year IBTR-free rates of 96% v 92%, respectively, P =.19).

173 By 10 years, IBTR events were reported for 45 of 2016 participants: 1