ArticleOncotarget2016
Analysis of the variability among radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical tumor bed based on 4D-CT.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visualization-driven digital technologies in oncology: current applications, technological advances, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- DE-MR simulation imaging for prone radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery: assessing its application in lumpectomy cavity delineation based on deformable image registration.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- A novel, adaptable, radiographically opaque, multi-plane continuous filament marker for optimizing tissue identification, radiation planning, and radiographic follow-up.Gland surgery · 2019Article
- Review of Current Accepted Practices in Identification of the Breast Lumpectomy Tumor Bed.Advances in radiation oncologyReview
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated interobserver and intraobserver variability in radiation oncologists' definition of the tumor bed (TB) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).
resultsThe TB volume, CVS and number of surgical clips were not significantly related to intraobserver variability. Moreover, no correlation was noted between CT slice thickness and interobserver variability (Δinter, DSCinter) in TB delineation, and no significant difference was noted among the three groups. The TB volume was negatively correlated with Δinter. DSCinter improved significantly with increased TB volume and decreased Δinter. DSCinter also increased significantly in patients with a CVS of 3 to 5 compared with patients with a CVS of 1 to 2. DSCinter was thus positively correlated with the CVS, with a correlation coefficient of 0.451. The use of 7 to 9 surgical clips neither decreased Δinter nor increased DSCinter. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive or more surgical clips were placed at the TB during lumpectomy. The TB was delineated on the end expiration scan. The data were stratified based on the cavity visualization score (CVS), CT slice thickness and surgical clip number. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and inter(intra)observer variability (Δinter and Δintra) in different groups were evaluated and compared.
conclusionsInter(intra)observer variability in TB delineation was decreased for breast cancer patients implanted with 5 or more surgical clips in the cohort with a higher CVS and a larger TB. The use of more than 6 surgical clips did not significantly improve TB delineation, so 5 to 6 surgical clips are likely adequate to delineate the TB.
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.