ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
Comparison of set-up errors by breast size on wing board by portal imaging.
Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of local setup errors of sub-regions in cone-beam CT-guided post-mastectomy radiation therapy.Journal of radiation research · 2020Article
- Setup Error Assessment and Correction in Planar kV Image- Versus Cone Beam CT Image-Guided Radiation Therapy: A Clinical Study of Early Breast Cancer Treated With External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Critical Factors of Dose Distribution in Breast Cancer Tomotherapy With Metallic Port Breast Tissue Expander: Image Correction, Delivery Mode, and Volume Impact.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo quantify and compare setup errors between small and large breast patients undergoing intact breast radiotherapy.
methods20 patients were inducted. 10 small/moderate size breast in arm I and 10 large breast in arm II. Two orthogonal and one lateral tangent portal images (PIs) were obtained and analyzed for systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors. Effect of no action level (NAL) was also evaluated retrospectively.
results142 PIs were analyzed. Σ(mm) was 3.2 versus 6.7 (p = 0.41) in the mediolateral (ML) direction, 2.1 versus 2.9 (p = 0.06) in the craniocaudal (CC) and 2.2 versus 3.6 (p = 0.08) in the anteroposterior (AP) direction in small and large breast, respectively. σ(mm) was 3.0, 3.3 and 3.3 for small breast and 4.1, 3.7 and 3.2 for large breast in the ML, CC and AP direction (p = 0.07, 0.86, 0.37), respectively. 3 D Σ(mm) was 2.7 versus 4.2 (p = 0.01) and σ(mm) was 2.5 versus 3.2 (p = 0.14) in arm I and II, respectively. The standard deviation (SD) of variations (mm) in breast contour depicted by central lung distance (CLD) was 5.9 versus 7.4 (p < 0.001), central flash distance (CFD) 6.6 versus 10.5 (p = 0.002), inferior central margin (ICM) 4 versus 4.9 (p < 0.001) in arm I and II, respectively. NAL showed a significant reduction of systematic error in large breast in the mediolateral direction only.
conclusionWing board can be used in a busy radiotherapy department for setting up breast patients with a margin of 1.1 cm, 0.76 cm and 0.71 cm for small breasts and 1.96 cm, 1.12 cm and 0.98 cm for large breast in the ML, AP and CC directions, respectively. The large PTV margin in the mediolateral direction in large breast can be reduced using NAL. Further research is needed to optimize positioning of large breasted women.
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.