1.Quality of Life Following 3D-Conformal Hypofractionated Radiotherapy of Breast Cancer
Fatimah Alaa Hussein ; Noorazrul Yahya ; Ummu Afifah Che Rosli ; Aida W. M. Mohd Mustapha ; Khairiyah Sidek ; Rosmizan Ahmad Razal ; Hanani Abdul Manan
Malaysian Journal of Health Sciences 2026;24(No. 1):9-17
Purpose: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), while effective in reducing cancer recurrence and improving survival
rates, often comes with radiation toxicity that can adversely affect the patient’s quality of life (QoL). Evaluating
toxicity after RT is crucial because it helps to identify and manage adverse effects that can significantly impact
a patient’s QoL. By monitoring toxicity, we can adjust treatment plans to mitigate these effects, improve patient
comfort, and ensure a better overall outcome. Therefore this study aimed to evaluate and compare QoL following
3D-conformal hypofractionated RT in breast cancer patients. Methods: We included twenty-one Malaysian women
with unilateral breast cancer treated with lumpectomy (n=15) or mastectomy (n=6) followed by 3D-conformal
hypofractionated RT. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-BR45 questionnaire before, during, and
after RT. Results: During RT, there was a significant increase in the mean score of the breast symptoms scale
compared to baseline (p=0.002), with the most common symptoms being skin problems, followed by swelling and
oversensitivity. However, these symptoms were generally mild for most patients. The other quality of life scales
remained stable during RT. Post-RT, most QoL scales showed improvements compared to both baseline and
during RT, with significant enhancements in the mean breast symptoms score and breast satisfaction score (all
p<0.05). Conclusion: Radiotherapy negatively impacted the QoL of our breast cancer patients, specifically on the
breast symptoms scale. However, these symptoms improved after 4 months, resulting in high breast satisfaction
and indicating a near-excellent cosmetic outcome. Future studies with larger cohorts are essential to validate
these findings, as the small sample size (n=21 at baseline; n=13 post-RT) may have limited the detection of more
subtle changes


Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail