ArticlePloS one2019
Testing the feasibility of augmented digital skin imaging to objectively compare the efficacy of topical treatments for radiodermatitis.
Article in PloS one, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A high-hydrostatic pressure device for nevus tissue inactivation and dermal regeneration for reconstructing skin defects after giant congenital melanocytic nevus excision: a clinical trial.Regenerative therapy · 2023Article
- Quantitative radiomics approach to assess acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients.PloS one · 2023Article
- A pilot study of a novel method to visualize three-dimensional dose distribution on skin surface images to evaluate radiation dermatitis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Three-dimensional surface imaging in breast cancer: a new tool for clinical studies?Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Quantitative assessment of radiodermatitis through a non-invasive objective procedure in patients with breast cancer.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiation-induced dermatitis (RID) is routinely graded by visual inspection. Inter-observer variability makes this approach inadequate for an objective assessment of the efficacy of different topical treatments. In this study we report on the first clinical application of a new image-analysis tool developed to measure the relevant effects quantitatively and to compare the effects of two different topical preparations used to treat RID. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter completion of radiotherapy, RID was retrospectively assessed in 100 white female breast cancer patients who had received adjuvant breast irradiation. Of these patients, 34 were treated with R1&R2, a Lactokine-fluid derived from milk proteins, and 66 were treated with Bepanthen. In addition RID was graded independently by two experienced radiation oncologists in accordance with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). For quantitative evaluation, the irradiated breast and the non-irradiated contralateral breast were photographed in a standardized manner including a color reference card. For analysis, all images were converted into the color space L*a*b* and mean values were calculated for each of the color parameters.
resultsThe CTCAE-based grading revealed statistically significant inter-observer variability in the scoring of RID Grades 1, 2 and 3 (p<0.001). A difference between the two topical products could not be observed with visual inspection. By using augmented image analysis methods a statistically significant increase in a*-values (mean 4.15; 95%CI: 5.97-2.33, p<0.001) in patients treated with R1&R2 indicated more intense reddening. Digital subtraction was used to eliminate differences in individual baseline skin tone to generate a new, low-scatter parameter (ΔSEV).
conclusionsVisual CTCAE-based evaluation of RID was not suitable for assessing the efficacy of the skin treatment products. In contrast, the novel image analysis enabled a quantitative evaluation independent of skin type and baseline skin tone in our cohort suggesting that augmented image analysis may be a suitable tool for this type of investigation. Prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.
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.