ライフサイエンスコーパス: PMRT

1 PMRT after a diagnosis of BC sharply increased the risk

2 PMRT can lead to an increased frequency of complications

3 PMRT increased 15-year costs from $40,800 to $48,100.

4 PMRT is also recommended after neoadjuvant systemic ther

5 PMRT is associated with improved survival for older wome

6 PMRT is conditionally recommended for patients with cT1-

7 PMRT is increasingly given to improve breast cancer outc

8 PMRT is increasingly given to improve breast cancer outc

9 PMRT may adversely affect PROs after IBBR irrespective o

10 PMRT should not be routinely used for these patients.

11 PMRT was not associated with improved oncological outcom

12 We hypothesized that (1) PMRT rates would increase for women affected by the revi

13 n ALND and PMRT receipt: (1) ALND alone, (2) PMRT alone, (3) both ALND and PMRT, and (4) neither ALND

14 Although PMRT is currently recommended for patients with four or

15 Axillary management based on ALND and PMRT receipt: (1) ALND alone, (2) PMRT alone, (3) both A

16 LND alone, (2) PMRT alone, (3) both ALND and PMRT, and (4) neither ALND nor PMRT.

17 tients received treatment with both ALND and PMRT, with little change over time.

18 lymph nodes were treated with both ALND and PMRT.

19 lihood of concurrent treatment with ALND and PMRT.

20 d the joint effects of cigarette smoking and PMRT on LC risk.

21 independent and joint effects of smoking and PMRT on risk of overall, ipsilateral, and contralateral

22 ratios for the joint effects of smoking and PMRT were 10.5 (95% CI, 2.9 to 37.8) for the contralater

23 Smoking and PMRT were associated with increased risk for all histolo

24 therapy followed by surgery, (3) appropriate PMRT volumes and dose-fractionation regimens, and (4) tr

25 ation that evaluated the association between PMRT and outcomes in breast cancer patients with T1-2 tu

26 The relationship between PMRT and mortality was determined using proportional haz

27 Most patients (88.4%) who received both PMRT and ALND underwent ALND at the same operation as SL

28 only, and 59% for patients treated with both PMRT and chemotherapy.

29 For women with T1-2 breast cancer, PMRT is associated with a 15% to 20% relative reduction

30 Patients were randomized 1:1 to HF or CF PMRT.

31 counseling clinicians to "strongly consider" PMRT for patients with breast cancer with tumors 5 cm or

32 After adjusting for covariates, PMRT use was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio

33 Patients and Methods We delivered PMRT at a dose of 36.63 Gy in 11 fractions of 3.33 Gy ov

34 T after upfront surgery, (2) indications for PMRT after neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by surg

35 who undergo mastectomy: (1) indications for PMRT after upfront surgery, (2) indications for PMRT aft

36 ts considering IBBR and when indications for PMRT are borderline to enable informed decision-making r

37 dated recommendations detail indications for PMRT in the upfront surgical setting and after neoadjuva

38 actionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstructi

39 mmediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT.

40 However, the interaction term for PMRT use and number of involved regional lymph nodes was

41 of involved nodes, a mortality benefit from PMRT may exist.

42 ncrease risk of complications resulting from PMRT.

43 ata add to the increasing experience with HF PMRT in patients with implant-based reconstruction.

44 evaluated a short course of hypofractionated PMRT, in which therapy was completed in 15 treatment day

45 Data supporting hypofractionated PMRT is limited.

46 rial of conventional versus hypofractionated PMRT that will activate soon.

47 The association between IBBR, PMRT, and PROs were investigated using mixed-effects reg

48 The association between IBBR, PMRT, and PROs were investigated using mixed-effects reg

49 nes have been associated with an increase in PMRT among patients with tumors 5 cm or smaller and 1 to

50 After upfront mastectomy, PMRT is indicated for most patients with node-positive b

51 or without adjuvant systemic therapy and no PMRT, LRF as first event remains low.

52 both ALND and PMRT, and (4) neither ALND nor PMRT.

53 The addition of PMRT reduced the risk of disease relapse by an odds rati

54 o 3 positive nodes; however, anticipation of PMRT may lead to delay or omission of reconstruction, wh

55 sion was used to evaluate the association of PMRT with disease-free survival and overall survival.

56 low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities.

57 women age 70 years or older, the benefits of PMRT are unknown.

58 ith patients about the risks and benefits of PMRT.

59 Costs of PMRT ($11,600) and recurrent breast cancer ($4,250 to 16

60 study offers one of the shortest courses of PMRT reported, delivered in 11 fractions to the chest wa

61 ittle; however, is known about the impact of PMRT on the PROs of IBBR, especially when mesh is used.

62 ittle; however, is known about the impact of PMRT on the PROs of IBBR, especially when mesh is used.

63 Rates of PMRT were unchanged in the radiotherapy recommended (29.

64 is to evaluate temporal trends in receipt of PMRT and breast reconstruction.

65 Receipt of PMRT for the strongly consider radiotherapy cohort was u

66 We sought to study the receipt of PMRT in elderly women in this period, using a population

67 Despite increasing receipt of PMRT, the strongly consider radiotherapy cohort maintain

68 The benefits and risks of PMRT in such patients, as well as subgroups of these pat

69 The use of PMRT in elderly women increased significantly during the

70 The use of PMRT significantly increased in women diagnosed in 1996

71 association of diagnosis year and the use of PMRT, after controlling for clinical and sociodemographi

72 rapy in this group of patients, the value of PMRT remains unknown.

73 For high-risk patients, PMRT was associated with a significant improvement in su

74 For low- and intermediate-risk patients, PMRT was not associated with survival.

75 ive biological effectiveness of 1.1]) proton PMRT.

76 imilar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients w

77 28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear.

78 have found that postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for breast cancer (BC) increases the risk of lung

79 onstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has increased over the past decade, the typical ap

80 tigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 da

81 nts who receive postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), the addition of axillary lymph node dissection (A

82 ncerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).

83 onstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy [PMRT]) represents guideline-concordant care (GCC) and is

84 o 12.8) for ever-smokers who did not receive PMRT and 18.9 (95% CI, 7.9 to 45.4) for ever-smokers who

85 eceived PMRT while 175 (46%) did not receive PMRT following mastectomy and were followed over a media

86 ed with nonsmoking women who did not receive PMRT, nonsmoking women who received PMRT had no higher r

87 panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to

88 neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT.

89 Only 2,648 women (15%) received PMRT.

90 ys post diagnosis, 63.3% (n = 4395) received PMRT, and 51.3% (n = 3564) underwent guideline-concordan

91 lusion criteria, of which 204 (54%) received PMRT while 175 (46%) did not receive PMRT following mast

92 %) patients treated with mastectomy received PMRT.

93 5 (38%) of 2,053 high-risk patients received PMRT.

94 hile the percentage of patients who received PMRT alone increased from 9.8% to 36.8%.

95 receive PMRT, nonsmoking women who received PMRT had no higher risk of LC; adjusted odds ratios were

96 , 7.9 to 45.4) for ever-smokers who received PMRT.

97 Recurrence was similar in patients receiving PMRT compared to those that did not: locoregional (0 vs

98 Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment.

99 e assessment tool at 6 months after starting PMRT, controlling for age.

100 matched case-control analysis confirmed that PMRT was associated with reduced mortality only in the s

101 ly agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), an

102 This analysis suggests that PMRT offers substantial clinical benefits achieved in a

103 Overall satisfaction was worse in the PMRT group [OR 0.497, P = 0.002, CI (0.32, 0.77)].

104 The details of the PMRT technique were also evaluated.

105 of use of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) during the period of information dissemination reg

106 The use of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has been recommended for patients with 4 or more p

107 iveness of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have led to changes in National Comprehensive Canc

108 Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves local-regional disease control and patien

109 icate that postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves survival for women age younger than 70 ye

110 on use of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in breast cancer treatment.

111 actionated postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) takes approximately 5 to 6 weeks.

112 nd without postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

113 en reconstruction should be done relative to PMRT and whether radiotherapy treatment should be direct

114 nd 1-3 positive lymph nodes after undergoing PMRT.

115 Patients undergoing PMRT (214 patients) reported worse PROs in 3 BREAST-Q do

116 ast cancer (Tis, TX, or T1-3) and unilateral PMRT from March 8, 2018, to November 3, 2021 (median [ra

117 ustment for potential confounding variables, PMRT was not associated with a statistically significant

118 When PMRT is delivered, treatment to the ipsilateral chest wa

119 older women, we sought to determine whether PMRT improves survival for older women with breast cance

120 linical-pathologic covariates tested whether PMRT was associated with improved overall survival for l

121 survival was increased from 48% to 55% with PMRT, resulting in an incremental 0.29 years of life gai

122 th seven or more involved nodes treated with PMRT experienced a significant reduction in all-cause (H

123 chemotherapy, 56% for patients treated with PMRT only, 57% for patients treated with chemotherapy on

124 rvival was 50% for patients not treated with PMRT or chemotherapy, 56% for patients treated with PMRT

125 e of reconstruction that should be used with PMRT, when reconstruction should be done relative to PMR

126 ree survival of 52% and 43% with and without PMRT, respectively.

127 ards of local and distant recurrence without PMRT were derived from a large meta-analysis of adjuvant