Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with high-risk breast cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial

Wang, Shu-Lian, Fang, Hui, Song, Yong-Wen, Wang, Wei-Hu, Hu, Chen, Liu, Yue-Ping, Jin, Jing, Liu, Xin-Fan, Yu, Zi-Hao, Ren, Hua, Li, Ning, Lu, Ning-Ning, Tang, Yu, Tang, Yuan, Qi, Shu-Nan, Sun, Guang-Yi, Peng, Ran, Li, Shuai, Chen, Bo, Yang, Yong, Li, Ye-Xiong·2019·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND To our knowledge, no randomised study has compared postmastectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy with conventional fractionated radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to determine whether a 3-week schedule of postmastectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy is as efficacious and safe as a 5-week schedule of conventional fractionated radiotherapy. METHODS This randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 study was done in a single academic hospital in China. Patients aged 18-75 years who had undergone mastectomy and had at least four positive axillary lymph nodes or primary tumour stage T3-4 disease were eligible to participate. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) according to a computer-generated central randomisation schedule, without stratification, to receive chest wall and nodal irradiation at a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (conventional fractionated radiotherapy) or 43·5 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks (hypofractionated radiotherapy). The modified intention-to-treat population (including all eligible patients who underwent randomisation but excluding those who were considered ineligible or withdrew consent after randomisation) was used in primary and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 5-year locoregional recurrence, and a 5% margin was used to establish non-inferiority (equivalent to a hazard ratio <1·883). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00793962. FINDINGS Between June 12, 2008, and June 16, 2016, 820 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group (n=414) or hypofractionated radiotherapy group (n=406). 409 participants in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group and 401 participants in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses. At a median follow-up of 58·5 months (IQR 39·2-81·8), 60 (7%) patients had developed locoregional recurrence (31 patients in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group and 29 in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group); the 5-year cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence was 8·3% (90% CI 5·8-10·7) in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group and 8·1% (90% CI 5·4-10·6) in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group (absolute difference 0·2%, 90% CI -3·0 to 2·6; hazard ratio 1·10, 90% CI 0·72 to 1·69; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). There were no significant differences between the groups in acute and late toxicities, except that fewer patients in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group had grade 3 acute skin toxicity than in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group (14 [3%] of 401 patients vs 32 [8%] of 409 patients; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION Postmastectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy was non-inferior to and had similar toxicities to conventional fractionated radiotherapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer. Hypofractionated radiotherapy could provide more convenient treatment and allow providers to treat more patients. FUNDING National Key Projects of Research and Development of China; the Chinese Academy of Medical Science Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; and Beijing Marathon of Hope, Cancer Foundation of China.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30813-1

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Wang, S.-L., Fang, H., Song, Y.-W., Wang, W.-H., Hu, C., Liu, Y.-P., Jin, J., Liu, X.-F., Yu, Z.-H., Ren, H., Li, N., Lu, N.-N., Tang, Y., Tang, Y., Qi, S.-N., Sun, G.-Y., Peng, R., Li, S., Chen, B., Yang, Y., & Li, Y.-X.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
352-360
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913181387
Cited by
396
References
24
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with high-risk breast cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30813-1
The paper
Wang, S.-L., Fang, H., Song, Y.-W., Wang, W.-H., Hu, C., Liu, Y.-P., Jin, J., Liu, X.-F., Yu, Z.-H., Ren, H., Li, N., Lu, N.-N., Tang, Y., Tang, Y., Qi, S.-N., Sun, G.-Y., Peng, R., Li, S., Chen, B., . . . Li, Y.-X. (2019). Hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with high-risk breast cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30813-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.