ArticleCureus2021
Dosimetric Comparisons of Simulation Techniques for Left-Sided Breast Cancer in the COVID-19 Era: Techniques to Reduce Viral Transmission and Respect the Therapeutic Ratio.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic challenges our ability to safely treat breast cancer patients and requires revisiting current techniques to evaluate optimal strategies. Potential long-term sequelae of breast radiation have been addressed by deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), prone positioning, and four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) average intensity projection (AveIP)-based planning techniques. Dosimetric comparisons to determine the optimal technique to minimize the normal tissue dose for left-sided breast cancers have not been performed. Methods Ten patients with left-sided, early-stage breast cancer undergoing whole breast radiation were simulated in the prone position, supine with DIBH, and with a free-breathing 4DCT scan. The target and organs at risk (OAR) contours were delineated in all scans. Target volume coverage and OAR doses were assessed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA were used to detect differences in dosimetric parameters among the different treatment plans. Significance was set as p < 0.05. Results We demonstrate differences in heart and lung dose by the simulation technique. The mean heart doses in the prone, DIBH, and AveIP plans were 129 cGy, 154 cGy, and 262 cGy, respectively (p=0.02). The lung V20 in the prone, DIBH, and AveIP groups was 0.5%, 10.3% and 9.5%, respectively (p <0.001). Regardless of technique, lumpectomy planning target volume (PTV) coverage did not differ between the three plans with 95% of the lumpectomy PTV volume covered by 100.4% in prone plans, 98.5% in AveIP plans, and 99.3% in DIBH plans (p=0.7). Conclusions Prone positioning provides dosimetric advantages as compared to DIBH. When infection risks are considered as in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prone plans have advantages in reducing the risk of disease transmission. In instances where prone positioning is not feasible, obtaining an AveIP simulation may be useful in more accurately assessing heart and lung toxicity and informing a risk/benefit discussion of DIBH vs free breath-hold techniques.
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.