Hypofractionated radiation therapy vs conventionally fractionated radiation therapy: Proportion of participants with relapse‐free survival at ≥ 12 months
Hypofractionated radiation therapy showed no clear difference in relapse‐free survival (RFS) at 10 years compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Hypofractionated radiation therapy vs conventionally fractionated radiation therapy Relapse‐free survival (RFS) at 10 years · women treated with breast conserving therapy for early breast cancer Hypofractionated radiation therapy showed no clear difference in relapse‐free survival (RFS) at 10 years compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (moderate certainty). Hypofractionated radiation therapy for early breast cancer (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | HR 0.93 [0.82, 1.05] | 3 studies · 5685 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypofractionated radiation therapy for early breast cancer 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.