ArticleScientific reports2018
Comparison of radiation dermatitis between hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated postoperative radiotherapy: objective, longitudinal assessment of skin color.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- ERFrontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- A dosiomics model for prediction of radiation-induced acute skin toxicity in breast cancer patients: machine learning-based study for a closed bore linac.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Quantitative radiomics approach to assess acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients.PloS one · 2023Article
- Quantitative assessments of late radiation-induced skin and soft tissue toxicity and correlation with RTOG scales and biological equivalent dose in breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022Article
- A pilot study of a novel method to visualize three-dimensional dose distribution on skin surface images to evaluate radiation dermatitis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Quantitative evaluation of radiodermatitis following whole-breast radiotherapy with various color space models: A feasibility study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Machine-learning prediction model for acute skin toxicity after breast radiation therapy using spectrophotometry.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to quantitatively compare radiation dermatitis due to hypofractionated (Hypo) and conventionally fractionated (Conv) external-beam radiotherapy in patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. Skin color changes, in terms of L* (brightness, white-black), a* (red-green), and b* (yellow-blue) values, due to external-beam radiotherapy were examined at alternate fractions using an objective method. Twenty-six patients were included in the Hypo group (42.56 Gy/16 fractions) and 46 in the Conv group (50 Gy/25 fractions). Radiotherapy decreased the L* value (darker) and increased the a* value (redder) gradually. These color alterations progressed linearly according to elapsed fractions and were similar between Hypo and Conv per fraction. The Hypo group showed significantly milder alterations in L* and a* values than the Conv group. The maximal dosage was significantly correlated to alterations in L* and a* values. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4 assessment did not show a statistically significant difference between the Hypo (Grade 0:1:2 = 2:24:1) and Conv (1:39:6, p = 0.25) groups. The results of our objective analysis revealed that patients undergoing Hypo show milder color alteration than those undergoing Conv and that the maximal dosage is a useful predicator of color alteration.
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.