ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2019
Integration of biological factors in the treatment plan evaluation in breast cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeTumor biology and patient smoking status have clear effects on the benefit of breast radiotherapy. This study developed treatment evaluation strategies that integrated dosimetry, tumor aggressiveness and smoking status for patients undergoing hypo-fractionated whole breast irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost. MATERIALS/
methodsThe evaluation method Plan Quality Metrics (PQM) was adapted for breast cancer. Radiotherapy (RT) benefit was assessed for three levels of tumor aggressiveness; RT risk was estimated using mean dose to organs at risk and published Excess Relative Risk per Gy data for lung cancer and cardiac mortality for smokers and non-smokers. Risk for contralateral breast cancer was also evaluated. PQM and benefit/risk was applied to four patient groups (n = 10 each). Plans using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), 3DCRT plus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3DCRT plus volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and VMAT were evaluated for each patient.
results3DCRT-IMRT hybrid planning resulted in higher PQM score (median 87.0 vs. 3DCRT 82.4, p < 0.01), better dose conformity, lower doses to the heart, lungs and contralateral breast. Survival benefit was most predominant for patients with high-risk breast cancer (>7% and >4.5% gain for non-smokers and smokers). For smokers with intermediate- or low-risk breast cancer, RT induced mortality risk dominated for all techniques. When considering the risk of local recurrence, RT benefitted also smokers (>5% and >2% for intermediate- and low-risk cancer).
conclusionsPQM methodology was suggested for breast cancer radiotherapy evaluation. Further validation is needed. RT was beneficial for all patients with high risk of recurrence. A survival benefit for smokers with low or intermediate risk of recurrence could not be confirmed.
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.