ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Dosimetric evaluation of incorporating the revised V4.0 calibration protocol for breast intraoperative radiotherapy with the INTRABEAM system.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the TG-43 formalism for intraoperative radiotherapy dosimetry in glioblastoma treatment.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Using a 3D-Printed Chest Phantom for Intraoperative Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In breast-targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) clinical trials (TARGIT-B, TARGIT-E, TARGIT-US), a single fraction of radiation is delivered to the tumor bed during surgery with 1.5- to 5.0-cm diameter spherical applicators and an INTRABEAM x-ray source (XRS). This factory-calibrated XRS is characterized by two depth-dose curves (DDCs) named "TARGIT" and "V4.0." Presently, the TARGIT DDC is used to treat patients enrolled in clinical trials; however, the V4.0 DDC is shown to better represent the delivered dose. Therefore, we reevaluate the delivered prescriptions under the TARGIT protocols using the V4.0 DDC. A 20-Gy dose was prescribed to the surface of the spherical applicator, and the TARGIT DDC was used to calculate the treatment time. For a constant treatment time, the V4.0 DDC was used to recalculate the dosimetry to evaluate differences in dose rate, dose, and equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) for an α/β = 3.5 Gy (endpoint of locoregional relapse). At the surface of the tumor bed (i.e., spherical applicator surface), the calculations using the V4.0 DDC predicted increased values for dose rate (43-16%), dose (28.6-23.2 Gy), and EQD2 (95-31%) for the 1.5- to 5.0-cm diameter spherical applicator sizes, respectively. In general, dosimetric differences are greatest for the 1.5-cm diameter spherical applicator. The results from this study can be interpreted as a reevaluation of dosimetry or the dangers of underdosage, which can occur if the V4.0 DDC is inadvertently used for TARGIT clinical trial patients. Because the INTRABEAM system is used in TARGIT clinical trials, accurate knowledge about absorbed dose is essential for making meaningful comparisons between radiation treatment modalities, and reproducible treatment delivery is imperative. The results of this study shed light on these concerns.
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.