Biologically Informed Decision-Making for PMRT in PT3N0M0 Luminal Breast Cancers (Protocol MF22-02): International Multicenter Real-World Data
| dc.contributor.author | Soran, Atilla | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gultekin, Melis Bahadir | |
| dc.contributor.author | Venkatesulu, Bhanu Prasad | |
| dc.contributor.author | Barry, Parul Nafees | |
| dc.contributor.author | King, Caleb | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bhargava, Rohit | |
| dc.contributor.author | Vargo, John Austin | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-06-26T20:20:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-06-26T20:20:31Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Two hundred and 2 women from 16 centers with pT3N0M0 hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative BC who underwent mastectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: PMRT (n = 130) and no PMRT (n = 69). Groups were compared in terms of overall survival (OS), loco-regional recurrence (LRR) rate, and distant metastases (DM) in light of Magee Equations Score (MS). At a median follow-up of 51.3 months for the no PMRT group and 65.9 months for the PMRT group (P =.041), 9% (n = 6) of patients from the no PMRT group and 2% (n = 3) from the PMRT group developed LRR (P = 0.047). There was no difference in local recurrence (1% in no PMRT group vs. 2% in PMRT group; P =.7) and distant recurrence (7% in no PMRT group vs. 3% in PMRT group; P =.16) in patients who received PMRT and no PMRT. Further comparison of the LRR in the no PMRT and PMRT groups in patients with an MS < 18 did not show a significant difference (3% vs. 4%; P =.64). However, among patients with an MS >= 18, no PMRT group had a higher LRR rate compared to the PMRT group (11% vs. 2%; P =.01). In patients with an MS >= 18, the administration of PMRT correlates with statistically significantly better LRR-free survival (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.05-0.79; P =.02). Patients with MS <18 experience a comparable rate of recurrence irrespective of PMRT, while those with MS >= 18 have higher rates of LRR and thus should not omit PMRT. Background: Current guidelines do not list definitive recommendations for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in patients with luminal pT3N0M0 breast cancer (BC). Increased data suggests de-escalation of radiation therapy (RT) in genomically defined biologically favorable luminal BCs. The goal of this study is to determine whether PMRT can be safely omitted for this specific subgroup of patients. Methods and materials: Two hundred and 2 women from 16 centers with pT3N0M0 hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative BC who underwent mastectomy were retrospectively analyzed. No patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Three patients were excluded because of positive surgical margins. Patients were divided into 2 groups: PMRT (n = 130) and no PMRT (n = 69). Groups were compared in terms of overall survival (OS), loco-regional recurrence (LRR) rate, and distant metastases (DM) in light of the Magee Equations Score (MS), menopausal status/age, axillary surgery, pathology, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), adjuvant chemotherapy, and adjuvant endocrine therapy. Results: The majority of the patients had invasive ductal carcinoma (49%, n = 98). There was no significant difference regarding tumor size, axillary surgery, and adjuvant endocrine therapy between the 2 groups (P =.82, P =.28, P =.12, respectively). LVI was 19% (n = 39), and it was greater in the PMRT group (25% vs. 10%; P =.01). Patients in the PMRT group received more chemotherapy (66% vs. 30%; P <.001), had more grade 3 tumors (28% vs. 9%, P =.005), and were more premenopausal (49% vs. 22%; P =.0001). At a median follow-up of 51.3 months for the no PMRT group and 65.9 months for the PMRT group (P =.041), 9% (n = 6) of patients from the no PMRT group and 2% (n = 3) from the PMRT group developed LRR (P =.047). There was no difference in local recurrence (1% in no PMRT group vs. 2% in PMRT group; P =.7) and distant recurrence (7% in no PMRT group vs. 3% in PMRT group; P =.16) in patients who received PMRT and no PMRT. Further comparison of the LRR in the no PMRT and PMRT groups in patients with an MS < 18 did not show a significant difference (3% vs. 4%; P =.64). However, among patients with an MS >= 18, no PMRT group had a higher LRR rate compared to the PMRT group (11% vs. 2%; P =.01). In patients with an MS >= 18, the administration of PMRT correlates with statistically significantly better LRR-free survival (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.05-0.79; P =.02). Conclusions: Our findings imply that when considering PMRT for patients with pT3N0M0, HR-positive, and HER2-negative BC, clinicians can benefit from a combination of pathological risk factors and recurrence prediction models. Patients with MS < 18 experience a comparable rate of recurrence irrespective of PMRT, while those with MS >= 18 have higher rates of LRR and thus should not omit PMRT. (c) 2025 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.clbc.2025.04.012 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1526-8209 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1938-0666 | |
| dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-105005261944 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2025.04.012 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Cig Media Group, Lp | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Clinical Breast Cancer | en_US |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess | en_US |
| dc.subject | Luminal Type | en_US |
| dc.subject | Magee Score | en_US |
| dc.subject | Postmastectomy Radiotherapy | en_US |
| dc.subject | PT3N0M0 Breast Cancer | en_US |
| dc.subject | Risk-Adapted Radiotherapy | en_US |
| dc.title | Biologically Informed Decision-Making for PMRT in PT3N0M0 Luminal Breast Cancers (Protocol MF22-02): International Multicenter Real-World Data | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| gdc.bip.impulseclass | C5 | |
| gdc.bip.influenceclass | C5 | |
| gdc.bip.popularityclass | C5 | |
| gdc.coar.access | metadata only access | |
| gdc.coar.type | text::journal::journal article | |
| gdc.collaboration.industrial | false | |
| gdc.description.department | İzmir Institute of Technology | en_US |
| gdc.description.departmenttemp | [Soran, Atilla; King, Caleb] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Surg Oncol, Magee Womens Hosp, 300 Halket St Rm 2601, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA; [Gultekin, Melis Bahadir; Yildiz, Ferah] Hacettepe Univ, Fac Med, Radiat Oncol, Ankara, Turkiye; [Venkatesulu, Bhanu Prasad; Barry, Parul Nafees; Vargo, John Austin] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Radiat Oncol, Magee Womens Hosp, Pittsburgh, PA USA; [Bhargava, Rohit] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Pathol, Magee Womens Hosp, Pittsburgh, PA USA; [Karanlik, Hasan] Istanbul Univ, Surg Oncol, Inst Oncol, Istanbul, Turkiye; [Soyder, Aykut] Acbadem Altunizade Hosp, Gen Surg, Istanbul, Turkiye; [Goktepe, Berk; Yeniay, Levent] Ege Univ, Fac Med, Gen Surg, Izmir, Turkiye; [Senol, Kazim] Uludag Univ, Fac Med, Gen Surg, Bursa, Turkiye; [Guzel, Caglar] Gazi Univ, Fac Med, Radiat Oncol, Ankara, Turkiye; [Sen, Ebru] Basaksehir Cam Sakura City Hosp, Gen Surg, Istanbul, Turkiye; [Dag, Ahmet] Mersin Univ, Fac Med, Gen Surg, Mersin, Turkiye; [Trabulus, Didem Can] Bahcesehir Univ, Fac Med, Med Pk Goztepe, Gen Surg, Istanbul, Turkiye; [Coskun, Alper] Uludag Univ, Fac Med, Med Oncol, Bursa, Turkiye; [Veliyeva, Hagigat] Azerbaijan Univ, Fac Med, Gen Surg, Istanbul, Turkiye; [Utkan, Zafer] Kocaeli Univ, Fac Med, Gen Surg, Kocaeli, Turkiye; [Demirors, Berkay] Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training & Res Hosp, Surg, Bursa, Turkiye; [Sezgin, Efe] Izmir Inst Technol, Dept Food Engn, Izmir, Turkiye | en_US |
| gdc.description.issue | 7 | en_US |
| gdc.description.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
| gdc.description.scopusquality | Q2 | |
| gdc.description.volume | 25 | en_US |
| gdc.description.woscitationindex | Science Citation Index Expanded | |
| gdc.description.wosquality | Q3 | |
| gdc.identifier.openalex | W4409709057 | |
| gdc.identifier.pmid | 40379596 | |
| gdc.identifier.wos | WOS:001602615900019 | |
| gdc.index.type | WoS | |
| gdc.index.type | Scopus | |
| gdc.index.type | PubMed | |
| gdc.oaire.diamondjournal | false | |
| gdc.oaire.impulse | 0.0 | |
| gdc.oaire.influence | 2.635068E-9 | |
| gdc.oaire.isgreen | false | |
| gdc.oaire.popularity | 2.1091297E-10 | |
| gdc.oaire.publicfunded | false | |
| gdc.openalex.collaboration | International | |
| gdc.openalex.fwci | 0.0 | |
| gdc.openalex.normalizedpercentile | 0.15 | |
| gdc.opencitations.count | 0 | |
| gdc.plumx.mendeley | 3 | |
| gdc.plumx.scopuscites | 0 | |
| gdc.scopus.citedcount | 0 | |
| gdc.wos.citedcount | 0 | |
| relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | 9af2b05f-28ac-4003-8abe-a4dfe192da5e |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- 1-s2.0-S152682092500103X-main.pdf
- Size:
- 890.86 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
- Article
