ArticleRadiology and oncology2014
Impact of respiratory motion on breast tangential radiotherapy using the field-in-field technique compared to irradiation using physical wedges.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Four-dimensional computed tomography in accelerated partial breast irradiation planning: single series from a phase III trial.La Radiologia medica · 2015Trial
- High Tangent Radiation Therapy With Field-in-Field Technique for Breast Cancer.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2017Article
- A Study on Dosimetric Outcomes and Acute Toxicity of Post Mastectomy Adjuvant Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Usefulness of the dual energy field-in-field technique in breast tangential radiotherapy.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
- Evaluation of the field-in-field technique with lung blocks for breast tangential radiotherapy.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate whether the field-in-field (FIF) technique was more vulnerable to the impact of respiratory motion than irradiation using physical wedges (PWs). PATIENTS AND
methodsTen patients with early stage breast cancer were enrolled. Computed tomography (CT) was performed during free breathing (FB). After the FB-CT data set acquisition, 2 additional CT scans were obtained during a held breath after light inhalation (IN) and light exhalation (EX). Based on the FB-CT images, 2 different treatment plans were created for the entire breast for each patient and copied to the IN-CT and EX-CT images. The amount of change in the volume of the target receiving 107%, 95%, and 90% of the prescription dose (V107%, V95%, and V90%, respectively), on the IN-plan and EX-plan compared with the FB-plan were evaluated.
resultsThe V107%, V95%, and V90% were significantly larger for the IN-plan than for the FB-plan in both the FIF technique and PW technique. While the amount of change in the V107% was significantly smaller in the FIF than in the PW plan, the amount of change in the V95% and V90% was significantly larger in the FIF plan. Thus, the increase in the V107% was smaller while the increases in the V95% and V90% were larger in the FIF than in the PW plan.
conclusionsDuring respiratory motion, the dose parameters stay within acceptable range irrespective of irradiation technique used although the amount of change in dose parameters was smaller with FIF technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.