Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24867535›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2014

Prone breast intensity modulated radiation therapy: 5-year results.

Etin-Osa O Osa, Keith DeWyngaert, Daniel Roses, James Speyer, Amber Guth, Deborah Axelrod, Maria Fenton Kerimian, Judith D Goldberg, Silvia C Formenti

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Etin-Osa O OsaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Keith DeWyngaertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Daniel RosesDepartment of Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
James SpeyerDepartment of Medical Oncology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Amber GuthDepartment of Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Deborah AxelrodDepartment of Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Maria Fenton KerimianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Judith D GoldbergDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Silvia C FormentiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. Electronic address: Silvia.formenti@nyumc.org.
New York University · US

Funding

Vaccine FacilityP30CA016087 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI ADRIANA HEGUY · 1985 to 2026
$83.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo report the 5-year results of a technique of prone breast radiation therapy delivered by a regimen of accelerated intensity modulated radiation therapy with a concurrent boost to the tumor bed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2003 and 2006, 404 patients with stage I-II breast cancer were prospectively enrolled into 2 consecutive protocols, institutional trials 03-30 and 05-181, that used the same regimen of 40.5 Gy/15 fractions delivered to the index breast over 3 weeks, with a concomitant daily boost to the tumor bed of 0.5 Gy (total dose 48 Gy). All patients were treated after segmental mastectomy and had negative margins and nodal assessment. Patients were set up prone: only if lung or heart volumes were in the field was a supine setup attempted and chosen if found to better spare these organs.

resultsNinety-two percent of patients were treated prone, 8% supine. Seventy-two percent had stage I, 28% stage II invasive breast cancer. In-field lung volume ranged from 0 to 228.27 cm(3), mean 19.65 cm(3). In-field heart volume for left breast cancer patients ranged from 0 to 21.24 cm(3), mean 1.59 cm(3). There was no heart in the field for right breast cancer patients. At a median follow-up of 5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of isolated ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence was 0.82% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65%-1.04%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of regional recurrence was 0.53% (95% CI 0.41%-0.69%), and the 5-year overall cumulative death rate was 1.28% (95% CI 0.48%-3.38%). Eighty-two percent (95% CI 77%-85%) of patients judged their final cosmetic result as excellent/good.

conclusionsProne accelerated intensity modulated radiation therapy with a concomitant boost results in excellent local control and optimal sparing of heart and lung, with good cosmesis. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 1005, a phase 3, multi-institutional, randomized trial is ongoing and is evaluating the equivalence of a similar dose and fractionation approach to standard 6-week radiation therapy with a sequential boost.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularDose Fractionation, RadiationFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLungMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Second PrimaryNeoplasm StagingOrgans at RiskPatient Positioning

Identifiers

PMID24867535
PMCPMC4684090
OpenAlexW1983091326

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.