Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29594225›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2017

Retrospective methods to estimate radiation dose at the site of breast cancer development after Hodgkin lymphoma radiotherapy.

Nicola S Russell, Inge M Krul, Anna M van Eggermond, Berthe M P Aleman, Rosie Cooke, Susanne Kuiper, Steven D Allen, Matthew G Wallis, Damien Llanas, Ibrahima Diallo and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Utility of topical agents for radiation dermatitis and pain: a randomized clinical trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Building absolute breast cancer risk prediction models for women treated with chest radiation for Hodgkin lymphoma.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Bone metastasis: evaluation of 1100 patients with breast cancer.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2021
    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

16 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Nicola S RussellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Inge M KrulDivison of Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anna M van EggermondDivison of Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Berthe M P AlemanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rosie CookeDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology (R.C., A.J.S.), Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK.
Susanne KuiperDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Steven D AllenDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Rd, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, UK.
Matthew G WallisCambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England, UK.
Damien LlanasCancer and Radiation Team, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale Unit 1018, Villejuif, France.
Ibrahima DialloCancer and Radiation Team, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale Unit 1018, Villejuif, France.
Florent de VathaireCancer and Radiation Team, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale Unit 1018, Villejuif, France.
Susan A SmithDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Michael HauptmannDivison of Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Annegien BroeksDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anthony J SwerdlowDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology (R.C., A.J.S.), Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK.
Flora E Van LeeuwenDivison of Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLCentre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations · FRInstitute of Cancer Research · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBInserm · FRRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increased risk of breast cancer following radiotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has now been robustly established. In order to estimate the dose-response relationship more accurately, and to aid clinical decision making, a retrospective estimation of the radiation dose delivered to the site of the subsequent breast cancer is required.

methodsFor 174 Dutch and 170 UK female patients with breast cancer following HL treatment, the 3-dimensional position of the breast cancer in the affected breast was determined and transferred onto a CT-based anthropomorphic phantom. Using a radiotherapy treatment planning system the dose distribution on the CT-based phantom was calculated for the 46 different radiation treatment field set-ups used in the study population. The estimated dose at the centre of the breast cancer, and a margin to reflect dose uncertainty were determined on the basis of the location of the tumour and the isodose lines from the treatment planning. We assessed inter-observer variation and for 47 patients we compared the results with a previously applied dosimetry method.

resultsThe estimated median point dose at the centre of the breast cancer location was 29.75 Gy (IQR 5.8-37.2), or about 75% of the prescribed radiotherapy dose. The median dose uncertainty range was 5.97 Gy. We observed an excellent inter-observer variation (ICC 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74-0.95)). The absolute agreement intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-method variation was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.37-0.75), indicating (nearly) good agreement. There were no systematic differences in the dose estimates between observers or methods.

conclusionEstimates of the dose at the point of a subsequent breast cancer show good correlation between methods, but the retrospective nature of the estimates means that there is always some uncertainty to be accounted for.

Indexed as

Breast carcinogenesisHodgkin lymphomaRetrospective dosimetry

Identifiers

PMID29594225
PMCPMC5862668
OpenAlexW2767198606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.