Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33008412›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020

Proton pencil beam scanning reduces secondary cancer risk in breast cancer patients with internal mammary chain involvement compared to photon radiotherapy.

Giorgio Cartechini, Francesco Fracchiolla, Loris Menegotti, Emanuele Scifoni, Chiara La Tessa, Marco Schwarz, Paolo Farace, Francesco Tommasino

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Giorgio CartechiniDepartment of Physics, University of Trento, Via Sommarive, 14, 38123, Povo, TN, Italy.
Francesco FracchiollaProtontherapy Department, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
Loris MenegottiHealth Physics Department, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
Emanuele ScifoniTrento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics, (INFN), Povo, Italy.
Chiara La TessaDepartment of Physics, University of Trento, Via Sommarive, 14, 38123, Povo, TN, Italy.
Marco SchwarzTrento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics, (INFN), Povo, Italy.
Paolo FaraceProtontherapy Department, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
Francesco TommasinoDepartment of Physics, University of Trento, Via Sommarive, 14, 38123, Povo, TN, Italy. francesco.tommasino@unitn.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8684-9261
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare · ITProvincia Autonoma di Trento · IT

Funding

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare MoVe IT Call CSN5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProton pencil beam scanning (PBS) represents an interesting option for the treatment of breast cancer (BC) patients with nodal involvement. Here we compare tangential 3D-CRT and VMAT to PBS proton therapy (PT) in terms of secondary cancer risk (SCR) for the lungs and for contralateral breast.

methodsFive BC patients including supraclavicular (SVC) nodes in the target (Group 1) and five including SVC plus internal-mammary-nodes (IMNs, Group 2) were considered. The Group 1 patients were planned by PT versus tangential 3D-CRT in free-breathing (FB). The Group 2 patients were planned by PT versus VMAT considering both FB and deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) irradiation. The prescription dose to the target volume was 50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). A constant RBE = 1.1 was assumed for PT. The SCR was evaluated with the excess absolute risk (EAR) formalism, considering also the age dependence. A cumulative EAR was finally computed.

resultsAccording to the linear, linear-exponential and linear-plateau dose response model, the cumulative EAR for Group 1 patients after PT was equal to 45 ± 10, 17 ± 3 and 15 ± 3, respectively. The corresponding relative increase for tangential 3D-CRT was equal to a factor 2.1 ± 0.5, 2.1 ± 0.4 and 2.3 ± 0.4. Group 2 patients showed a cumulative EAR after PT in FB equal to 65 ± 3, 21 ± 1 and 20 ± 1, according to the different models; the relative risk obtained with VMAT increased by a factor 3.5 ± 0.2, 5.2 ± 0.3 and 5.1 ± 0.3. Similar values emerge from DIBH plans. Contrary to photon radiotherapy, PT appears to be not sensitive to the age dependence due to the very low delivered dose.

conclusionsPBS PT is associated to significant SCR reduction in BC patients compared to photon radiotherapy. The benefits are maximized for young patients with both SVC and IMNs involvement. When combined with the improved sparing of the heart, this might contribute to the establishment of effective patient-selection criteria for proton BC treatments.

Indexed as

PhotonsAdultAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Second PrimaryOrgans at RiskPrognosisProton TherapyRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedBreast cancerProton therapySecondary cancer riskTangential 3D-CRTVMAT

Identifiers

PMID33008412
PMCPMC7532613
OpenAlexW3090824243

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.