247 patients were included
in this analysis. Among them, 87 (35%) received CRT, while 160 (65%) were
treated by HFRT. The clinicopathological characteristics of CRT vs. HFRT were
as follows: The majority of the patients were T1 and T2, 92% in CRT vs. 94% in HFRT. N3 was rare in both groups, 8.3% vs. 5.1% in CRT vs. HFRT, respectively. The CRT had more stage 3 patients than HFRT, 35% vs. 23% respectively, but fewer stage 1 (18.1 vs. 23.5%, respectively). Estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) positive was 79.5% vs.
76.7%, HER2 enriched was 7% vs. 5%, while high Ki-67 was 56.3% vs. 71.4% in CRT
vs. HFRT, respectively. Lymphovascular invasion was positive in 52.7% of CRT
vs. 64.3% in HFRT, while the extracapsular extension was positive in 31% of CRT
vs. 19.4% in HFRT. The distribution of tumor grades was similar across the groups. After a median follow up of 42 months (range:
5-135), 10% of the total 247 patients developed locoregional recurrences:13.8%
(n=12) were in CRT group, whereas 8.1% (n=13) in HFRT, p = 0.158; the HFRT
group had insignificant lower locoregional recurrences. In univariate and multivariate
analysis, only very young age was an independent poor prognostic factor for
locoregional failure.