ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016
A comparison of dosimetric variance for external-beam partial breast irradiation using three-dimensional and four-dimensional computed tomography.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of two different respiratory monitoring systems with 4D-CT images for target volume definition in patients undergoing para-aortic nodal irradiation.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024Article
- Analysis of the variability among radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical tumor bed based on 4D-CT.Oncotarget · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the potential dosimetric benefits from four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) compared with three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) in radiotherapy treatment planning for external-beam partial breast irradiation (EB-PBI). PATIENTS AND
methods3DCT and 4DCT scan sets were acquired for 20 patients who underwent EB-PBI. The volume of the tumor bed (TB) was determined based on seroma or surgical clips on 3DCT images (defined as TB3D) and the end inhalation (EI) and end exhalation (EE) phases of 4DCT images (defined as TBEI and TBEE, respectively). The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the TB plus a 1.0 cm margin. The planning target volume (PTV) was the CTV plus 0.5 cm (defined as PTV3D, PTVEI, and PTVEE). For each patient, a conventional 3D conformal plan (3D-CRT) was generated (defined as EB-PBI3D, EB-PBIEI, and EB-PBIEE).
resultsThe PTV3D, PTVEI, and PTVEE were similar (P=0.549), but the PTV coverage of EB-PBI3D was significantly less than that of EB-PBIEI or EB-PBIEE (P=0.001 and P=0.025, respectively). There were no significant differences in the homogeneity or conformity indexes between the three treatment plans (P=0.125 and P=0.536, respectively). The EB-PBI3D plan resulted in the largest organs at risk dose.
conclusionThere was a significant benefit for patients when using 3D-CRT based on 4DCT for EB-PBI with regard to reducing nontarget organ exposure. Respiratory motion did not affect the dosimetric distribution during free breathing, but might result in poor dose coverage when the PTV is determined using 3DCT.
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.