ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAfter breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined.
methodsWe retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated.
results15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax.
conclusionOur data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment.
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.