Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33260404›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Dosimetric Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Hybrid Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy/Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Right Breast Cancer.

Yi-Chi Liu, Hung-Ming Chang, Hsin-Hon Lin, Chia-Chun Lu, Lu-Han Lai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yi-Chi LiuInstitute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30015 Taiwan.
Hung-Ming ChangDepartment of General Surgery, Wei Gong Memorial Hospital, Miaoli 35159, Taiwan.
Hsin-Hon LinMedical Physics Research Center, Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung University/Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 33302, Taiwan.
Chia-Chun LuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Environmental Sciences, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan.
Lu-Han LaiDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiological Technology, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu 30015, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1118-0292
National Tsing Hua University · TWChang Gung University · TWYuanpei University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare different types of right breast cancer radiotherapy planning techniques and to estimate the whole-body effective doses and the critical organ absorbed doses. The three planning techniques are intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT; two methods) and hybrid 3D-CRT/IMRT (three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy/intensity-modulated radiotherapy). The VMAT technique includes two methods to deliver a dose: non-continuous partial arc and continuous partial arc. A thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) is placed in the RANDO phantom to estimate the organ absorbed dose. Each planning technique applies 50.4 Gy prescription dose and treats critical organs, including the lung and heart. Dose-volume histogram was used to show the planning target volume (V95%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and other optimized indices. The estimation of whole-body effective dose was based on the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 and 103. The results were as follows: Continuous partial arc and non-continuous partial arc showed the best CI and HI. The heart absorbed doses in the continuous partial arc and hybrid 3D-CRT/IMRT were 0.07 ± 0.01% and 0% (V5% and V10%, respectively). The mean dose of the heart was lowest in hybrid 3D-CRT/IMRT (1.47 Gy ± 0.02). The dose in the left contralateral lung (V5%) was lowest in continuous partial arc (0%). The right ipsilateral lung average dose and V20% are lowest in continuous partial arc. Hybrid 3D-CRT/IMRT has the lowest mean dose to contralateral breast (organs at risk). The whole-body effective doses for ICRP-60 and ICRP-103 were highest in continuous partial arc (2.01 Sv ± 0.23 and 2.89 Sv ± 0.15, respectively). In conclusion, the use of VMAT with continuous arc has a lower risk of radiation pneumonia, while hybrid 3D-CRT/IMRT attain lower secondary malignancy risk and cardiovascular complications.

Indexed as

hybrid 3D-CRT/IMRTintensity-modulated radiotherapyright breast cancervolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID33260404
PMCPMC7760558
OpenAlexW3108595070

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.