Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24613813›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2014

Decline of cosmetic outcomes following accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity modulated radiation therapy: results of a single-institution prospective clinical trial.

Adam L Liss, Merav A Ben-David, Reshma Jagsi, James A Hayman, Kent A Griffith, Jean M Moran, Robin B Marsh, Lori J Pierce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Individually selected teletherapy technique for accelerated partial breast irradiation.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Adam L LissDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Merav A Ben-DavidDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
James A HaymanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kent A GriffithBiostatistics Unit, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jean M MoranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Robin B MarshDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lori J PierceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: ljpierce@umich.edu.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USSheba Medical Center · IL

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Scott Michael Schuetze · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo report the final cosmetic results from a single-arm prospective clinical trial evaluating accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with active-breathing control (ABC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women older than 40 with breast cancer stages 0-I who received breast-conserving surgery were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective study evaluating APBI using IMRT administered with deep inspiration breath-hold. Patients received 38.5 Gy in 3.85-Gy fractions given twice daily over 5 consecutive days. The planning target volume was defined as the lumpectomy cavity with a 1.5-cm margin. Cosmesis was scored on a 4-category scale by the treating physician. Toxicity was scored according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 3.0). We report the cosmetic and toxicity results at a median follow-up of 5 years.

resultsA total of 34 patients were enrolled. Two patients were excluded because of fair baseline cosmesis. The trial was terminated early because fair/poor cosmesis developed in 7 of 32 women at a median follow-up of 2.5 years. At a median follow-up of 5 years, further decline in the cosmetic outcome was observed in 5 women. Cosmesis at the time of last assessment was 43.3% excellent, 30% good, 20% fair, and 6.7% poor. Fibrosis according to CTCAE at last assessment was 3.3% grade 2 toxicity and 0% grade 3 toxicity. There was no correlation of CTCAE grade 2 or greater fibrosis with cosmesis. The 5-year rate of local control was 97% for all 34 patients initially enrolled.

conclusionsIn this prospective trial with 5-year median follow-up, we observed an excellent rate of tumor control using IMRT-planned APBI. Cosmetic outcomes, however, continued to decline, with 26.7% of women having a fair to poor cosmetic result. These results underscore the need for continued cosmetic assessment for patients treated with APBI by technique.

Indexed as

Breath HoldingAdultAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDose Fractionation, RadiationEarly Termination of Clinical TrialsEstheticsFemaleFibrosisFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedMovement

Identifiers

PMID24613813
PMCPMC5446776
OpenAlexW2079457655

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.