• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.18
• /
• pp.7959-7964
• /
• 2014

The significance of the single hormone receptor positive phenotype of breast cancer is still poorly understood. The use of hormone therapy has been found to be less effective for this type, which has a survival outcome midway between double positive and double negative phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in patient and tumor characteristics and survival between double-receptor positive (ER+PR+), double receptor negative (ER-PR-) and single receptor positive (ER+PR- and ER-PR+) breast cancer in an Asian setting. A total of 1,992 patients with newly diagnosed stage I to IV breast cancer between 2003 and 2008, and where information on ER and PR were available, were included in this study. The majority of patients had ER+PR+ tumors (n=903: 45.3%), followed by 741 (37.2%) ER-PR-, 247 (12.4%) ER+PR-, and 101 (5.1%) ER-PR+ tumors. Using multivariate analysis, ER+PR- tumors were 2.4 times more likely to be grade 3 compared to ER+PR+ tumors. ER+PR- and ER-PR+ tumors were 82% and 86% respectively less likely to be grade 3 compared with ER-PR- tumors. ER-PR+ tumours were associated with younger age. There were no survival differences between patients with ER+PR+ and ER-PR+ tumors. However, ER+PR- tumors have poorer survival compared with ER+PR+ tumours. ER-PR- tumours had the worst survival. Adjuvant hormonal therapy with tamoxifen was found to have identical survival advantage in patients with ER+PR+ and ER-PR+ tumors whereas impact was slightly lower in patients with ER+PR- tumors. In conclusion, we found ER+PR- tumors to be more aggressive and have poorer survival when compared to ER+PR+ tumors, while patients with ER-PR+ tumours were younger, but had a similar survival to their counterparts with ER+PR+ tumours.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.13
• /
• pp.5259-5264
• /
• 2014

Background: CT based brachytherapy allows 3-dimensional (3D) assessment of organs at risk (OAR) doses with dose volume histograms (DVHs). The purpose of this study was to compare computed tomography (CT) based volumetric calculations and International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) reference-point estimates of radiation doses to the bladder and rectum in patients with carcinoma of the cervix treated with high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). Materials and Methods: Between March 2011 and May 2012, 20 patients were treated with 55 fractions of brachytherapy using tandem and ovoids and underwent post-implant CT scans. The external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) dose was 48.6Gy in 27 fractions. HDR brachytherapy was delivered to a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions. The ICRU bladder and rectum point doses along with 4 additional rectal points were recorded. The maximum dose ($D_{Max}$) to rectum was the highest recorded dose at one of these five points. Using the HDRplus 2.6 brachyhtherapy treatment planning system, the bladder and rectum were retrospectively contoured on the 55 CT datasets. The DVHs for rectum and bladder were calculated and the minimum doses to the highest irradiated 2cc area of rectum and bladder were recorded ($D_{2cc}$) for all individual fractions. The mean $D_{2cc}$ of rectum was compared to the means of ICRU rectal point and rectal $D_{Max}$ using the Student's t-test. The mean $D_{2cc}$ of bladder was compared with the mean ICRU bladder point using the same statistical test. The total dose, combining EBRT and HDR brachytherapy, were biologically normalized to the conventional 2 Gy/fraction using the linear-quadratic model. (${\alpha}/{\beta}$ value of 10 Gy for target, 3 Gy for organs at risk). Results: The total prescribed dose was $77.5Gy{\alpha}/{\beta}10$. The mean dose to the rectum was $4.58{\pm}1.22Gy$ for $D_{2cc}$, $3.76{\pm}0.65Gy$ at $D_{ICRU}$ and $4.75{\pm}1.01Gy$ at $D_{Max}$. The mean rectal $D_{2cc}$ dose differed significantly from the mean dose calculated at the ICRU reference point (p<0.005); the mean difference was 0.82 Gy (0.48-1.19Gy). The mean EQD2 was $68.52{\pm}7.24Gy_{{\alpha}/{\beta}3}$ for $D_{2cc}$, $61.71{\pm}2.77Gy_{{\alpha}/{\beta}3}$ at $D_{ICRU}$ and $69.24{\pm}6.02Gy_{{\alpha}/{\beta}3}$ at $D_{Max}$. The mean ratio of $D_{2cc}$ rectum to $D_{ICRU}$ rectum was 1.25 and the mean ratio of $D_{2cc}$ rectum to $D_{Max}$ rectum was 0.98 for all individual fractions. The mean dose to the bladder was $6.00{\pm}1.90Gy$ for $D_{2cc}$ and $5.10{\pm}2.03Gy$ at $D_{ICRU}$. However, the mean $D_{2cc}$ dose did not differ significantly from the mean dose calculated at the ICRU reference point (p=0.307); the mean difference was 0.90 Gy (0.49-1.25Gy). The mean EQD2 was $81.85{\pm}13.03Gy_{{\alpha}/{\beta}3}$ for $D_{2cc}$ and $74.11{\pm}19.39Gy_{{\alpha}/{\beta}3}$ at $D_{ICRU}$. The mean ratio of $D_{2cc}$ bladder to $D_{ICRU}$ bladder was 1.24. In the majority of applications, the maximum dose point was not the ICRU point. On average, the rectum received 77% and bladder received 92% of the prescribed dose. Conclusions: OARs doses assessed by DVH criteria were higher than ICRU point doses. Our data suggest that the estimated dose to the ICRU bladder point may be a reasonable surrogate for the $D_{2cc}$ and rectal $D_{Max}$ for $D_{2cc}$. However, the dose to the ICRU rectal point does not appear to be a reasonable surrogate for the $D_{2cc}$.