Author

f/u* (mo’s)

Treatment

n

Breast Failure (%)

Cosmesis

Total

True**

Elsewhere

Good Excellent

Fodor

120

WBI

Arthur [22]

84

LDR 45 Gy

33

12%

10%

3%

Not stated

RTOG

HDR 34Gy

66

3%

1.5%

1.5%

King [16]

75

LDR 45 Gy

26

8%

1%

3%

75%

Ochsner Clinic

HDR 32 Gy

26

Vicini [44] [73] [74]

96

LDR 50 Gy

120

3%

1.5%

1.5%

99%

William Beaumont

HDR 32 - 34 Gy

79

Ott. [20]

32

HDR 32 Gy, 4 Gy bid × 8

99

German-Austrian

PDR 50 Gy 5days

175

0.7%

<1%

<1%

94%

Patel [19]

49

Low vs high risk disease

183 low

2.2%

Univ. Wisc*****

HDR 32-34 Gy

90 high

4.4%

Not available

Arthur [40]

42

LDR 45 Gy

13

0%

0%

0%

80%

Virg. Commonwealth

HDR 34 Gy

31

Kaufman [21]

Tufts/Brown Univ

84

HDR 34, Gy

33

9%

6%

3%

88%

Lawenda [82]

Mass General

23

LDR 50-60 Gy

48

0%

0%

0%

92%

Polgar C, et al. [77]

NIO Hungary

81

HDR 30.3 Gy, 4.33 × 7

HDR 36.4 Gy, 5.2 Gy × 7

45

6.7%

0%

6.7%

84%

HDR 36.4, 5.2 Gy × 7

83

Wide-vol electrons 50Gy

80

10%

3.8%

6.3%

68%

Polgar et al. [77] [78]

NIO Hungary

Randomized

67ds

HDR 36.4, 5.2 Gy × 7

Limited vo electrons 50 Gy

128

4.7%

2.3%

2.3%

77%

Whole breast, 50 Gy

130

3%

1.5%

1.5%

69%

Strnad [79]

GEC-ESTRO

60

WBI 50.0 - 50.4 Gy/25 - 28 F

673

0.92%

-

-

63%

with 10Gy/5F boost

APBI 32 Gy/8 F or 30.3 Gy/7 F

675

1.44%

-

-

81%

Yashar [81]

Strut Study

59.5

Strut APBI 34 Gy/10 F (twice daily)

250

-

2.3%

3.6%

85.9%