Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29749075›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2018

Evaluation of a mixed beam therapy for postmastectomy breast cancer patients: Bolus electron conformal therapy combined with intensity modulated photon radiotherapy and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy.

Rui Zhang, David Heins, Mary Sanders, Beibei Guo, Kenneth Hogstrom

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Postmastectomy radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer patients: Comparison of advanced techniques.Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists
    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

5 authors.

Rui ZhangDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.
David HeinsDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.
Mary SandersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 70809, USA.
Beibei GuoDepartment of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.
Kenneth HogstromDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.

Funding

Systematic evaluation of predicted outcomes and costs to inform clinical and policy decision making for emerging postmastectomy radiotherapiesK22CA204464 · NCI · LOUISIANA STATE UNIV A&M COL BATON ROUGE · PI ZHANG, RUI · 2016 to 2018
$580k
NCI NIH HHS K22 CA204464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the potential benefits and limitations of a mixed beam therapy, which combined bolus electron conformal therapy (BECT) with intensity modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy (VMAT), for left-sided postmastectomy breast cancer patients.

methodsMixed beam treatment plans were produced for nine postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) patients previously treated at our clinic with VMAT alone. The mixed beam plans consisted of 40 Gy to the chest wall area using BECT, 40 Gy to the supraclavicular area using parallel opposed IMRT, and 10 Gy to the total planning target volume (PTV) by optimizing VMAT on top of the BECT + IMRT dose distribution. The treatment plans were created in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), and all plans were evaluated based on PTV coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI), conformity index (CI), dose to organs at risk (OARs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and secondary cancer complication probability (SCCP). The standard VMAT alone planning technique was used as the reference for comparison.

resultsBoth techniques produced clinically acceptable PMRT plans but with a few significant differences: VMAT showed significantly better CI (0.70 vs 0.53, P < 0.001) and DHI (0.12 vs 0.20, P < 0.001) over mixed beam therapy. For normal tissues, mixed beam therapy showed better OAR sparing and significantly reduced NTCP for cardiac mortality (0.23% vs 0.80%, P = 0.01) and SCCP for contralateral breast (1.7% vs 3.1% based on linear model, and 1.2% vs 1.9% based on linear-exponential model, P < 0.001 in both cases), but showed significantly higher mean (50.8 Gy vs 49.3 Gy, P < 0.001) and maximum skin doses (59.7 Gy vs 53.3 Gy, P < 0.001) compared with VMAT. Patients with more tissue (minimum distance between the distal PTV surface and lung approximately > 0.5 cm and volume of tissue between the distal PTV surface and heart or lung approximately > 250 cm

conclusionThis work has demonstrated that mixed beam therapy (BECT + IMRT:VMAT = 4:1) produces clinically acceptable plans having reduced OAR doses and risks of side effects compared with VMAT. Even though VMAT alone produces more homogenous and conformal dose distributions, mixed beam therapy remains as a viable option for treating postmastectomy patients, possibly leading to reduced normal tissue complications.

Indexed as

MastectomyBreast NeoplasmsElectronsFemaleHumansRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective Studiesbolus electron conformal therapyintensity modulated photon radiotherapymixed beam therapypostmastectomy radiotherapyvolumetric modulated photon arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID29749075
PMCPMC6041175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.