ライフサイエンスコーパス: APBI

1 APBI arm consisted of 30 Gy in 5 consecutive daily fract

2 APBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to whole-

3 01) and late bone toxicity (grade >= 3: 1.1% APBI v 0% WBI, P < .0001) were significantly higher in t

4 risk, were randomly assigned (WBI, n = 260; APBI, n = 260) between 2005 and 2013.

5 ion-to-treat population (1,623 WBI and 1,602 APBI).

6 ere randomly assigned to 1,657 WBI and 1,652 APBI; 3,225 patients comprised the intention-to-treat po

7 Late soft tissue toxicity (grade >= 3: 2.8% APBI v 1% WBI, P < .0001) and late bone toxicity (grade

8 Therefore, adjuvant APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy after breast-cons

9 ne patient developed severe distortion after APBI, while two patients developed only mild distortion

10 mental boost of 10 Gy to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 30.1 Gy (seven fractions) and 32.0

11 a supplemental boost to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 34 Gy of brachytherapy or 38.5 Gy

12 the relative cytotoxicity of various PBI and APBI derivatives.

13 figuration of the 3-position of the PBIs and APBIs influence DT-diaphorase substrate activity to a le

14 phorase reductase activity for both PBIs and APBIs.

15 on (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group).

16 ated with the highly conformal-external beam APBI technique and those with the more commonly used mod

17 midopyrrolo[1,2-alpha]benzimidazolequinones (APBIs).

18 BI has little cytotoxicity while the 7-butyl APBI has enhanced cytotoxicity.

19 on support large randomized trials comparing APBI with standard whole-breast irradiation after breast

20 ed after breast-conserving surgery to 3D-CRT APBI (38.5 Gy in 10 fractions twice daily) or WBI (42.5

21 3D-CRT APBI increased rates of adverse cosmesis and late radiat

22 2,135 women were randomly assigned to 3D-CRT APBI or WBI.

23 ents are cautioned against the use of 3D-CRT APBI outside the context of a controlled trial.

24 he interacalation of only electron deficient APBIs into DNA.

25 patient subgroups or outcomes from different APBI techniques.

26 in early breast cancer treated with external APBI using IMRT technique in 5 once-daily fractions is l

27 -breast irradiation vs seven [1%] of 470 for APBI; p=0.021; at 7.5-year or 10-year follow-up, or both

28 radiation and three [1%] of 375 patients for APBI, p=0.56).

29 ve an overview of the biologic rationale for APBI techniques, and benefits and limitations of APBI te

30 imitations that suggest a potential role for APBI as a more user-friendly mode for delivering radioth

31 TR) between 30 Gy in 5 once-daily fractions (APBI arm) and 50 Gy in 25 fractions with a tumor bed boo

32 idinyl group (PBIs) and a 6-acetamido group (APBIs).

33 in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some women.

34 e whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in APBI group had available data on adverse events.

35 s of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for patients with early breast cancer after breast

36 ial, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for patients with stage 0, I, and IIA breast cance

37 Accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) involves treating a limited volume of breast tissu

38 Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) represents a valid option for adjuvant therapy of

39 shed accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) studies.

40 ther accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) to only the tumour-bearing quadrant, which shorten

41 n of accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI).

42 Patients treated with MammoSite APBI developed peak distortion 21 months following thera

43 esis outcomes were significantly in favor of APBI.

44 techniques, and benefits and limitations of APBI techniques.

45 h 7-methoxy results in a substantial loss of APBI cytotoxicity as well as decreased topoisomerase II

46 Four currently available methods of APBI are interstitial brachytherapy, intracavitary brach

47 Several techniques of APBI are being investigated; however, most experience, a

48 instead of methyl) had an adverse effect on APBI inhibition of topoisomerase II while the configurat

49 igned to whole breast irradiation (n=673) or APBI (n=655), of whom 551 in the whole-breast irradiatio

50 iants of the pyrrolo[1, 2-a]benzimidazole or APBI ring system.

51 adiation (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group).

52 omised to either whole-breast irradiation or APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy.

53 o receive either whole-breast irradiation or APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy.

54 t cancer; and currently accruing and planned APBI trials.

55 Postoperative APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy after breast-cons

56 h tumour-bed boost and 633 patients received APBI using interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy.

57 ties were increased among those who received APBI compared with WBI (P < .001).

58 in and breast symptoms results, suggest that APBI should be strongly considered as a treatment option

59 The APBI arm showed significantly less acute toxicity (P = .

60 ole-breast irradiation group and 14 from the APBI group withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up at

61 % (n = 6) in the WBI and 3.7% (n = 9) in the APBI arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 0.55 to 4.37;

62 years was 96.7% in the WBI and 97.8% in the APBI arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.99; P = .45).

63 Patients in the APBI arm reported more favorable global health status at

64 P < .0001) were significantly higher in the APBI arm.

65 omen eligible for the primary outcome in the APBI group and 71 (3%) of 2036 women in the whole-breast

66 on group and 49 (2%) of 2093 patients in the APBI group died from recurring breast cancer.

67 ole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome.

68 Patients in the APBI group had a significantly lower incidence of treatm

69 nce of IBTR was 4.6% (95% CI 3.7-5.7) in the APBI group versus 3.9% (3.1-5.0) in the whole-breast irr

70 hole-breast irradiation group and 633 in the APBI group were eligible for analysis.

71 oup and 314 (67%) of 470 participants in the APBI group, at 7.5-year or 10-year follow-up, or both.

72 %), and grade 3 in 201 (10%) patients in the APBI group, compared with grade 1 in 626 (31%), grade 2

73 iation group and 3.51% (1.99 to 5.03) in the APBI group.

74 nge, 4.0-8.4) years, adverse cosmesis in the APBI patients was higher than that in the WBI patients a

75 adiation group and 2107 were assigned to the APBI group.

76 The APBIs are cytotoxic only as quinones, and reduction to t

77 ned to inhibit topoisomerase II, much as the APBIs are able to do.

78 Indeed, the APBIs possess a high inverse correlation with the cellul

79 Since only the quinone form of the APBIs can intercalate DNA, two-electron reduction to the

80 DNA via major groove interactions, while the APBIs are reductively inactivated by this enzyme since o

81 ion (WBI) or external beam radiation therapy APBI (38.5 Gy/10 fraction twice daily).

82 ree-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, APBI has very recently come to the forefront as a potent

83 External beam radiation therapy-APBI with a twice-daily IRMA schedule was associated wit

84 ase 3 randomised trial, we evaluated whether APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy is non-inferior c

85 In our trial, we investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lump

86 2% with whole-breast irradiation and 0% with APBI (p=0.46).

87 late side-effects to the skin was 3.2% with APBI versus 5.7% with whole-breast irradiation (p=0.08),

88 recurrence was 1.44% (95% CI 0.51-2.38) with APBI and 0.92% (0.12-1.73) with whole-breast irradiation

89 ving approximately 500 patients treated with APBI after breast-conserving surgery have been published

90 5-year follow-up, nine patients treated with APBI and five patients receiving whole-breast irradiatio

91 years was increased among those treated with APBI compared with WBI as assessed by trained nurses (29

92 Early BC patients treated with APBI showed non-inferior short-term and late HRQoL outco