Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23021709›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2013

Is there a dose-response relationship for heart disease with low-dose radiation therapy?

Eugene Chung, James R Corbett, Jean M Moran, Kent A Griffith, Robin B Marsh, Mary Feng, Reshma Jagsi, Marc L Kessler, Edward C Ficaro, Lori J Pierce

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Integrated scoring approach to assess radiotherapy plan quality for breast cancer treatment.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eugene ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5010, USA.
James R Corbett
Jean M Moran
Kent A Griffith
Robin B Marsh
Mary Feng
Reshma Jagsi
Marc L Kessler
Edward C Ficaro
Lori J Pierce
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Scott Michael Schuetze · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
IMRT in the Treatment of Node-Positive Breast CancerR01CA102435 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PIERCE, LORI J · 2004 to 2006
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592NCI NIH HHS R01 CA102435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo quantify cardiac radiation therapy (RT) exposure using sensitive measures of cardiac dysfunction; and to correlate dysfunction with heart doses, in the setting of adjuvant RT for left-sided breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: On a randomized trial, 32 women with node-positive left-sided breast cancer underwent pre-RT stress single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT-CT) myocardial perfusion scans. Patients received RT to the breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes to doses of 50 to 52.2 Gy. Repeat SPECT-CT scans were performed 1 year after RT. Perfusion defects (PD), summed stress defects scores (SSS), and ejection fractions (EF) were evaluated. Doses to the heart and coronary arteries were quantified.

resultsThe mean difference in pre- and post-RT PD was -0.38% ± 3.20% (P=.68), with no clinically significant defects. To assess for subclinical effects, PD were also examined using a 1.5-SD below the normal mean threshold, with a mean difference of 2.53% ± 12.57% (P=.38). The mean differences in SSS and EF before and after RT were 0.78% ± 2.50% (P=.08) and 1.75% ± 7.29% (P=.39), respectively. The average heart Dmean and D95 were 2.82 Gy (range, 1.11-6.06 Gy) and 0.90 Gy (range, 0.13-2.17 Gy), respectively. The average Dmean and D95 to the left anterior descending artery were 7.22 Gy (range, 2.58-18.05 Gy) and 3.22 Gy (range, 1.23-6.86 Gy), respectively. No correlations were found between cardiac doses and changes in PD, SSS, and EF.

conclusionsUsing sensitive measures of cardiac function, no clinically significant defects were found after RT, with the average heart Dmean <5 Gy. Although a dose response may exist for measures of cardiac dysfunction at higher doses, no correlation was found in the present study for low doses delivered to cardiac structures and perfusion, SSS, or EF.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCoronary VesselsDose-Response Relationship, RadiationFemaleHeartHumansMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingMyocardial Perfusion ImagingOrgans at RiskPositron-Emission TomographyProspective StudiesRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRadiotherapy, Conformal

Identifiers

PMID23021709
PMCPMC5175458
OpenAlexW2078672078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.