ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Which technique of positioning and immobilization is better for breast cancer patients in postmastectomy IMRT, single-pole or double-pole immobilization?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of immobilization system angle, body mass index and breast size on breast radiotherapy accuracy using EPID-only setup.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Dosimetric impact of bolus thickness and immobilization mask use in postmastectomy radiotherapy: a chest wall thickness-based analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Enhancing positioning accuracy in adjuvant radiotherapy for left breast cancer using cervical-thoracic integrated bracket combined with deep inspiration breath holding.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- ESTRO-ACROP guideline for positioning, immobilisation and setup verification for local and loco-regional photon breast cancer irradiation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Dosimetric effects of supine immobilization devices on the skin in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer: a retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Comparing Accuracy of Thermoplastic Mask versus Commercial Bra for the Immobilization of Pendulous Breast During Radiation Therapy Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur purpose was to explore which immobilization is more suitable for clinical practice in postmastectomy intensity modulation radiotherapy, the single-pole position or the double-pole position?
methodsPatients treated with postmastectomy intensity modulation radiotherapy were eligible. They were selected randomly for single-pole position or double-pole position. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) was used to evaluate plans. After their first radiotherapy, the physicians asked a question about the comfort level of their position. The dosimetric parameters, comfort levels, and reproducibility of the two immobilization techniques were collected and analyzed after all patients had finished the whole radiotherapy.
resultsTotally, 94 patients were enrolled. Of these, 54 patients were treated with the single-pole position, 28 (51.9%)had left-sided lesions. While 40 patients were treated with the double-pole position, 20 (50%) had left-sided lesions. Patients' characteristics in two groups were comparable. The single-pole and double-pole immobilizations had similar conformity (0.60 ± 0.05 vs 0.60 ± 0.06, P = 0.887) and homogeneity index (0.14 ± 0.03 vs 0.13 ± 0.03, P = 0.407). Compared to single-pole position, double-pole position typically increased the mean dose, V
conclusionsSingle-pole position seems to be more comfortable and can reduce dose coverage to heart. Both devices allow for reproducible setup and acceptable dosimetry.
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.