Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33074349›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2021

Matched-pair dosimetric comparison of cardiac radiation exposure between deep-inspiration breath-hold whole-breast radiation therapy with Active Breathing Coordinator and interstitial multicatheter high-dose-rate brachytherapy as accelerated partial breast irradiation in adjuvant treatment of left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Georgios Chatzikonstantinou, Christian Scherf, Janett Köhn, Hans Ackermann, Ulla Ramm, Nikolaos Tselis

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Investigating the impact of breast positioning control on physical treatment parameters in multi-catheter breast brachytherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Georgios ChatzikonstantinouDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Georgios.Chatzikonstantinou@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3069-2979
Christian ScherfDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Janett KöhnDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Hans AckermannInstitute of Biostatistic and Mathematical Modeling, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Ulla RammDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Nikolaos TselisDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeTo compare dosimetrically the radiation exposure to heart, left ventricle (LV), and left anterior descending artery (LAD) between whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) with Active Breathing Coordinator (ABC; ABC-WBRT) and interstitial multicatheter high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as accelerated partial breast irradiation (ABPI; imHDR-APBI) for left-sided breast cancer (BCA) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween January 2016 and December 2019, 32 and 20 patients were treated with ABC-WBRT (63 Gy/2.25 Gy) and imHDR-APBI (32 Gy/4 Gy), respectively. Among them a matched-pair analysis was performed according to tumor location (clock position) before BCS as well as planning target volume of imHDR-APBI and boost volume of ABC-WBRT. This yielded 17 pairs of patients for whom dosimetric parameters for heart, LV, and LAD were evaluated. The Mann-Whitney test was used for comparison after adjusting for equivalent dose in 2‑Gy fractions (EQD2). In addition, a second analysis of ABC-WBRT to 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions was performed in order to account for the EQD2 difference between the 63-Gy ABC-WBRT and the imHDR-APBI protocol.

resultsTumor location for the 17 pairs of patients relative to breast quadrant was as follows: upper outer 8, lower outer 5, upper inner 3, and lower inner 1. There was no difference regarding mean heart dose (MHD) and V5, whereas D25%, D45%, V10, and V25 significantly favored imHDR-APBI. Likewise, mean dose- and V5-LV did not differ, while Dmax- and V23-LV were significantly higher for ABC-WBRT. For LAD, Dmax, D25%, and V30 significantly favored imHDR-APBI without differences for mean dose and V40. When comparing imHDR-APBI with the 40.05 Gy ABC-WBRT schedule, MHD and mean dose LV were significantly lower in favor of ABC-WBRT.

conclusionABC-WBRT and imHDR-APBI yield similar low heart and LV exposure for left-sided BCA after BCS, whereas LAD can be better spared with imHDR-APBI.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrachytherapyBreastBreast NeoplasmsBreath HoldingFemaleHeartHeart VentriclesHumansMiddle AgedRadiation Dose HypofractionationRadiation ExposureRadiometryUnilateral Breast NeoplasmsBreast cancerCardiac toxicityGatingHypofractionationInterventional radiation oncology

Identifiers

PMID33074349
OpenAlexW3093236419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.