ArticleBJR open2021
A dosimetric study to improve the quality of nodal radiotherapy in breast cancer.
Article in BJR open, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesField-based planning for regional nodal breast radiotherapy (RT) used to be standard practice. This study evaluated a field-based posterior axillary boost (PAB) and two forward-planned intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) techniques, aiming to replace the first.
methodsSupraclavicular and axillary nodes, humeral head, brachial plexus, thyroid, and oesophagus were retrospectively delineated on 12 CT scans. Three plans, prescribed to 40.05 Gy, were produced for each patient. Breast plans consisted of field-in-field IMRT tangential fields in all three techniques. Nodal plans consisted of a field-based PAB (anterior and posterior boost beam), and 2 forward-planned techniques: simple IMRT 1 (anterior and posterior beam with limited segments), and a more advanced IMRT 2 technique (anterior and fully modulated posterior beam).
resultsThe nodal V
conclusionsBoth IMRT techniques achieved the dose coverage requirements and reduced normal tissue exposure, decreasing the risk of radiation side effects. Despite the increased cost of IMRT, compared to non-IMRT techniques ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Forward-planned IMRT already resulted in significant dose reduction to organs at risk and improved planning target volume coverage.
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.