Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Clin Cases. Jun 16, 2024; 12(17): 2995-3003
Published online Jun 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.2995
Published online Jun 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.2995
Table 1 Patient characteristics
Variable | G0 | G2 | χ2 | P value |
Age | ||||
< 60 | 41 | 7 | 0.92 | 0.57 |
≥ 60 | 12 | 4 | ||
Laterality | ||||
Left | 28 | 5 | 0.20 | 0.66 |
Right | 25 | 6 | ||
Type of surgery | ||||
Mastectomy | 40 | 6 | 1.97 | 0.16 |
Lumpectomy | 13 | 5 | ||
Histologic type | ||||
Ductal invasive carcinoma | 45 | 11 | 1.90 | 0.59 |
Lobular invasive carcinoma | 3 | 0 | ||
Mucinous carcinoma | 2 | 0 | ||
Others | 3 | 0 | ||
Stage group | ||||
Ⅱ A | 31 | 6 | 2.12 | 0.35 |
Ⅱ B | 10 | 4 | ||
Ⅲ | 12 | 1 | ||
Molecular subtype | ||||
Luminal A | 18 | 2 | 6.389 | 0.172 |
Luminal B | 8 | 0 | ||
Luminal HER2-positive | 9 | 1 | ||
HER2 overpressing | 6 | 2 | ||
Triple-negative | 12 | 6 | ||
Chemotherapy | ||||
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 19 | 5 | 0.69 | 0.71 |
Adjuvant chemotherapy | 32 | 6 | ||
No chemotherapy | 2 | 0 | ||
Anti-HER2 targeted therapy | ||||
No | 37 | 9 | 0.65 | 0.66 |
Yes | 15 | 3 |
Table 2 Univariable logistic regression analyses of clinical characteristics and grade 2 radiation oesophagitis
Variable | OR (95%CI) | P value |
Age | ||
< 60 | 1.00 | 0.34 |
≥ 60 | 1.95 (0.49-7.81) | |
Laterality | ||
Left | 1.00 | |
Right | 1.34 (0.37-4.95) | 0.66 |
Surgery | ||
Lumpectomy | 1.00 | |
Mastectomy | 0.39 (0.10-1.49) | 0.17 |
Histologic type | ||
Ductal invasive carcinoma | 1.00 | |
Others | 0.00 (0.00-) | 1.0 |
Stage | ||
Ⅱ | 1.00 | |
Ⅲ | 0.34 (0.04-2.94) | 0.33 |
Anti-HER2 targeted therapy | ||
Yes | 1.00 | |
No | 1.05 (0.25-4.51) | 0.95 |
Chemotherapy | ||
Yes | 1.00 | |
No | 0.00(0.00- ) | 1.0 |
Table 3 Degree of variability of dosimetric parameters in patients
Variable | G0 | ≥ G2 | ||||
Mean | Range | Std Dev | Mean | Range | Std Dev | |
Total volume | 8.59 | (6.01-11.75) | 1.28 | 8.90 | (6.65-11.19) | 1.40 |
Dmax | 39.60 | (34.35-46.38) | 3.24 | 42.78 | (39.40-46.81) | 2.69 |
Dmean | 16.11 | (10.5-25.28) | 3.02 | 19.44 | (14.30-22.49) | 2.71 |
RV V10 (%) | 59.35 | (28.83-87.50) | 16.41 | 66.45 | (37.87-95.19) | 17.45 |
RV V20 (%) | 37.62 | (19.45-71.20) | 10.09 | 45.27 | (31.06-54.15) | 7.26 |
RV V30 (%) | 16.45 | (5.10-38.69) | 8.81 | 36.45 | (26.28-44.83) | 5.81 |
RV V35 (%) | 4.59 | (0.00-27.09) | 5.93 | 17.11 | (7.01-27.95) | 7.91 |
RV V40 (%) | 0.58 | (0.00-9.57) | 1.57 | 3.02 | (0.00-11.55) | 4.36 |
AV V10 (mL) | 5.10 | (2.34-8.97) | 1.48 | 5.73 | (3.54-7.34) | 1.34 |
AV V20 (mL) | 3.23 | (1.42-6.55) | 0.96 | 4.03 | (2.51-5.48) | 0.91 |
AV V30 (mL) | 1.39 | (0.08-2.79) | 0.71 | 3.25 | (2.01-4.73) | 1.34 |
AV V35 (mL) | 0.37 | (0.00-2.03) | 0.47 | 1.49 | (0.61-2.33) | 0.67 |
AV V40 (mL) | 0.05 | (0.00-0.88) | 0.14 | 0.27 | (0.00-1.03) | 0.40 |
Table 4 Comparisons of esophageal dosimetric parameters between patients without and with grade 2 radiation oesophagitis
Variable | Univariable logistic regression | Stepwise linear regression | ||||
OR (95%CI) | P value | Adjust R2 | Std. error | F | P value | |
Total volume | 1.20 (0.72-2.00) | 0.48 | ||||
Dmean | 1.44 (1.12-1.85) | < 0.01 | ||||
Dmax | 1.38 (1.09-1.76) | 0.01 | ||||
RV V10 | 1.02 (0.98-1.06) | 0.29 | ||||
RV V20 | 1.08 (1.01-1.16) | 0.03 | ||||
RV V30 | 1.36 (1.13-1.63) | < 0.01 | ||||
RV V35 | 1.22 (1.10-1.36) | < 0.01 | ||||
RV V40 | 1.36 (1.06-1.75) | 0.01 | ||||
AV V10 | 1.38 (0.89-2.13) | 0.16 | ||||
AV V20 | 2.30 (1.14-4.64) | 0.02 | ||||
AV V30 | 2.97 (1.88-5.69) | < 0.01 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 59.1 | < 0.01 |
AV V35 | 2.43 (1.45-3.96) | < 0.01 | 0.51 | 0.76 | 33.9 | 0.03 |
AV V40 | 2.52 (1.96-3.60) | 0.01 |
- Citation: Ji MC, Li ZJ, Li K, Wang YX, Yang B, Lv LL, Su Y, Zhang ZW, Huo ZC, Qi Q, Lu YC, Cui ZQ, Liu YB. Dosimetric risk factors for radiation esophagitis in patients with breast cancer following regional nodal radiation. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(17): 2995-3003
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v12/i17/2995.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.2995