Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31664991›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Decision curve analysis apropos of choice of preferable treatment positioning during breast irradiation.

Ferenc Rárosi, Krisztina Boda, Zsuzsanna Kahán, Zoltán Varga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Is prone free breathing better than supine deep inspiration breath-hold for left whole-breast radiotherapy? A dosimetric analysis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021
    Trial
  2. Pathomechanisms and therapeutic opportunities in radiation-induced heart disease: from bench to bedside.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2021
    Review
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

4 authors.

Ferenc RárosiDepartment of Medical Physics and Informatics, University of Szeged, Korányi fasor 9, Szeged, 6720, Hungary. rarosi.ferenc@med.u-szeged.hu.ORCID 0000-0002-1014-9242
Krisztina BodaDepartment of Medical Physics and Informatics, University of Szeged, Korányi fasor 9, Szeged, 6720, Hungary.
Zsuzsanna KahánDepartment of Oncotherapy, University of Szeged, Korányi fasor 12, Szeged, 6720, Hungary.
Zoltán VargaDepartment of Oncotherapy, University of Szeged, Korányi fasor 12, Szeged, 6720, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiotherapy is a standard treatment option for breast cancer, but it may lead to significant late morbidity, including radiation heart damage. Breast irradiation performed individually in the supine or prone position may aid in minimizing the irradiation dose to the heart and LAD coronary artery. A series of CT scans and therapy plans are needed in both positions for the 'gold standard' decision on the preferable treatment position. This method is expensive with respect to technology and physician workload. Our ultimate goal is to develop a predictive tool to identify the preferable treatment position using easily measurable patient characteristics. In this article, we describe the details of how model building and consequently validation of the best model are done.

methodsDifferent models were used: both logistic regression and multiple linear regressions were used to estimate the LAD mean dose difference (the difference between the mean dose to the LAD in the supine position versus prone position); predicted dose differences were analysed compared to the 'gold standard' values, and the best model was selected accordingly. The final model was checked by random cross-validation. In addition to generally used measures (ROC and Brier score), decision curves were employed to evaluate the performance of the models.

resultsROC analysis demonstrated that none of the predictors alone was satisfactory. Multiple logistic regression models and the linear regression model lead to high values of net benefit for a wide range of threshold probabilities. Multiple linear regression seemed to be the most useful model. We also present the results of the random cross-validation for this model (i.e. sensitivity of 80.7% and specificity of 87.5%).

conclusionsDecision curves proved to be useful to evaluate our models. Our results indicate that any of the models could be implemented in clinical practice, but the linear regression model is the most useful model to facilitate the radiation treatment decision. In addition, it is in use in everyday practice in the Department of Oncotherapy, University of Szeged, Hungary.

Indexed as

Decision Making, Computer-AssistedPatient PositioningBreast NeoplasmsComputer SimulationFemaleHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedWorkloadDecision curveLAD mean doseLeft-sided breast radiotherapyPredictionRegression modelValidation

Identifiers

PMID31664991
PMCPMC6819418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.