0 210

Cited 0 times in

Concurrent Versus Sequential Adjuvant Capecitabine-Based Chemoradiation in Residual Triple-Negative Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant-Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Comparative Study

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author김용배-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-27T03:29:25Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-27T03:29:25Z-
dc.date.issued2025-05-
dc.identifier.issn0360-3016-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/206280-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Given the aggressive nature and poor prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adjuvant capecitabine has been the standard therapy for residual disease after preoperative systemic therapy (PST). However, the optimal sequence of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) and capecitabine remains unclear. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of concurrent RT and capecitabine (RT+CAP) versus sequential RT followed by capecitabine (RT→CAP) in patients with residual TNBC after PST. Methods and materials: In this multicenter retrospective study, data from 491 patients treated at 14 tertiary hospitals were analyzed. The patients received either postoperative RT→CAP (n = 255) or RT+CAP (n = 236). Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. Results: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. With a median follow-up of 41.8 months, the 4-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 68.8% and 82.4%, respectively. The RT+CAP group demonstrated improvements in DFS (74.6% vs 63.7%, P = .045) and OS (86.8% vs 78.3%, P = .006) compared with the RT→CAP group. Specifically, RT+CAP showed superior DFS and OS outcomes in patients with a low disease burden (ypT0-1, ypN0/axillar level I only, or Ki67 <15%). Additionally, the incidence of ≥grade 2 toxicities and discontinuation of capecitabine because of toxicity did not differ, indicating that RT+CAP was well tolerated. Conclusions: RT+CAP offers improvements in oncologic outcomes without an increase in adverse events compared with RT→CAP, suggesting it is a promising treatment option for patients with residual TNBC after PST.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherElsevier Science Inc.-
dc.relation.isPartOfINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHAntimetabolites, Antineoplastic* / administration & dosage-
dc.subject.MESHAntimetabolites, Antineoplastic* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHAntimetabolites, Antineoplastic* / therapeutic use-
dc.subject.MESHCapecitabine* / administration & dosage-
dc.subject.MESHCapecitabine* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHCapecitabine* / therapeutic use-
dc.subject.MESHChemoradiotherapy* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHChemoradiotherapy* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHChemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHChemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHChemotherapy, Adjuvant / methods-
dc.subject.MESHDisease-Free Survival-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHNeoadjuvant Therapy* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm, Residual / therapy-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHTriple Negative Breast Neoplasms* / mortality-
dc.subject.MESHTriple Negative Breast Neoplasms* / pathology-
dc.subject.MESHTriple Negative Breast Neoplasms* / therapy-
dc.titleConcurrent Versus Sequential Adjuvant Capecitabine-Based Chemoradiation in Residual Triple-Negative Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant-Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Comparative Study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorNalee Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSu Ssan Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWon Kyung Cho-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWon Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJi Hyun Chang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYong Bae Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAh Ram Chang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTae Hyun Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJongmoo Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJin Hee Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKyubo Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYu Jin Lim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTae Gyu Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJin Hwa Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJeanny Kwon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSungmin Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKyung Hwan Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHaeyoung Kim-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.11.109-
dc.contributor.localIdA00744-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01157-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-355X-
dc.identifier.pmid39672514-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360301624037210-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Yong Bae-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김용배-
dc.citation.volume122-
dc.citation.number1-
dc.citation.startPage72-
dc.citation.endPage83-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, Vol.122(1) : 72-83, 2025-05-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.