Background: Today evaluating the cosmetic result is an actual problem and is one of the indicators of a well-conducted organ-saving treatment. Preservation of high quality of life, achievement of good cosmetic results in patients with early breast cancer after complex treatment is an important task of modern oncology.

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the cosmetic results of treatment with standard, accelerated hypofractionated and dynamic regimens of radiotherapy for breast cancer.

Methods: The design of the study is a non-randomized clinical trial. For the period from 2014 to 2017 years we analyzed the results of treatment of 50 patients with breast cancer who received the hypofractionated radiation therapy after surgical treatment. To assess the cosmetic effect of treatment with standard and accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy, an objective and subjective analysis was performed. Reliability of differences in comparing cosmetic results of treatment between patients who received standard, hypofractionated and dynamic regimens of radiation therapy was performed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney method.

Results: Comparison of cosmetic results with hypofractionated and standard radiotherapy regimens showed "excellent" and "good" cosmetic results were recorded in 66% of patients with a SOD of 43.2 Gy for the remainder of the breast, whereas when SOD was administered in standard mode to 50 Gy - "Excellent" and "good" cosmetic results were recorded in 60% of patients (p = 0.049). "Excellent" and "good" results of treatment were obtained in the majority of 33 (66%) patients: in 18 (72%) patients who received GFLT, these parameters were 60% (15 people) in the standard mode.

Conclusions: Evaluation of the results of cosmetic effect depending on different regimens of RT does not demonstrate significant differences in the study groups.

Thus, the use of a new radiotherapy technique with dose hypofractionation did not impair the cosmetic results of treatment.


Key words: breast cancer, cosmetic result, radiation therapy, hypofraction.

Almagul S. Zhabagina,

Yеvgeniya O. Kossymbayeva,

Tasbolat A. Adylkhanov,

Ainur S. Baissalbayeva,

Kuantkan T. Zhabagin,

Daniyar T. Raissov,

Oncology and radiology department,

Semey State Medical University,

Semey, Kazakhstan;


1. Amirdzhanova N., Goryachev D.V., Korshunov N.I., Rebrov A.P., Sorockaya V.N. Populyatsionnye pokazateli kachestva zhizni po oprosniku SF-36 [Population quality of life indicators according to SF-36 questionnaire]. Nauchno-prakticheskaya revmatologiya [Scientific and Practical Rheumatology]. 2008. №1. pp. 36–48. [in Russian]

2. Balabukha O.S. Kachestvo zhizni kak osnova programm reabilitatsii onkologicheskikh bolnykh [Quality of life as the basis of rehabilitation programs for cancer patients.]. Mezhdunarodnyi meditsinskii zhurnal [International Medical Journal]. 2010. №4. pp. 11–13. [in Russian]

3. Ionova T.I., Novik A.A., Suhonos Ju.A. Ponjatie kachestva zhizni bolnyh onkologicheskogo profilja [The concept of quality of life of cancer patients]. Onkologiya. [Onсology]. 2000. T.2, 1–2. pp. 25-27. [in Russian]

4. Merabishvili M.V. Vyzhivaemost onkologicheskikh bolnykh [Survival of cancer patients]. Sankt-peterburg, 2006. 438 p. [in Russian]

5. Nurgaziev K.S. Perspektivy i vozmozhnosti sovremennoy terapii bolnykh disseminirovannymi formami raka molochnoi zhelezy [Perspectives and possibilities of modern therapy for patients with disseminated forms of breast cancer]. Onkologiya i radiologiya Kazakhstana [Oncology] 2013. №2. pp.12-15. [in Russian]

6. Chissova V.I., Starinskii V.V. Petrova G.V. Sostoyanie onkologicheskoi pomoshi naseleniyu Rossii v 2010 godu [The condition of oncological care for the population of Russia in 2010.]. FGU «MNIOI im. P.A. Gercena» [FSI P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute], 2011. 188 pp. [in Russian]

7. Аaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B. et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trilas in oncology. J. Nat. Cancer lnst. 1993. №85. P. 365—375.

8. Aaronson N.K., Cull A., Kaasa S., Sprangers M. The European Organisation (or Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology. Int. J. Ment. Health. 1994. №23. P.75-96.

9. Al-ghazal S.K., Blamey R.W. Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. The Breast, 1999. Issue 4 10.1054 С. 162–168.

10. Beysebayev E., Tulebayev K., Meymanalyev T. Breast cancer diagnosis by mammography in Kazakhstan - staging results of breast cancer with double reading. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, (2015). 13, 2341-4.

11. Bilyalova Z., Igissinov N., Moore M., et al. Epidemiological evaluation of breast cancer in ecological areas of Kazakhstan - association with pollution emissions. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, (2012). 13, 2341-4.

12. Edge S.B., Compton C.C. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the Future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010. Issue 6, С. 1471–1474.

13. Cancer Facts & Figures. American Cancer Society 2007 S. 2-4.

14. Imai H. et al. Economic Evaluation of the Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer-Present Status and Open Issues. Breast Cancer 2007. Т. 14. № 1. С. 81–87.

15. Rochefordiere A., Abner A., Silver B. Are cosmetic results following conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer dependent on technique? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992. Т. 23. № February. С. 925–931.

: 1623

Zhabagina A.S., Kossymbayeva Yе.O., Adylkhanov T.A., Baissalbayeva A.S., Zhabagin K.T., Raissov D.T. Comparative evaluation of cosmetic results of treatment in standard, accelerated hypofraction and dynamic modes of radiation therapy of breast cancer. Nauka i Zdravookhranenie [Science & Healthcare]. 2017, 6, pp. 78-87.