ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022
Comparing treatment uncertainty for ultra- vs. standard-hypofractionated breast radiation therapy based on in-vivo dosimetry.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A commissioning protocol for portal imaging-based radiotherapy in vivo dosimetry systems.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Validation of an in vivo transit dosimetry algorithm using Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of adaptations to the clinical workflow in radiotherapy using transit in vivo dosimetry.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Clinical implementation of the first Cherenkov imaging system in a community-based hospital.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Postoperative ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy (UHFRT) in 5 fractions (fx) for breast cancer patients is as effective and safe as conventionally hypofractionated RT (HFRT) in 15 fx, liberating time for higher-level daily online Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) corrections. In this retrospective study, treatment uncertainties occurring in patients treated with 5fx (5fx-group) were evaluated using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in-vivo dosimetry (EIVD) and compared with the results from patients treated with conventionally HFRT (15fx-group) to validate the new technique and to evaluate if the shorter treatment schedule could have a positive effect on the treatment uncertainties. Materials and methods: EPID-based integrated transit dose images were acquired for each treatment fraction in the 5fx-group (203 patients) and on the first 3 days of treatment and weekly thereafter in the 15fx-group (203 patients). A total of 1015 EIVD measurements in the 5fx-group and 1144 in the 15fx-group were acquired. Of the latter group, 755 had been treated with online IGRT correction (i.e., Online-IGRT 15fx-group). Results: In the 15fx-group 12.0% of fractions failed (FFs) compared to 3.8% in the 5fx-group and 6.9% in the online-IGRT 15fx-group. Causes for FFs in the 15fx-group compared with the 5fx-group were patient positioning (7.4% vs. 2.2%), technical issues (3.1% vs. 1.2%) and breast swelling (1.4% vs. 0.5%). In the online-IGRT 15fx-group, 2.5% were attributed to patient positioning, 3.8% to technical issues and 0.5% to breast swelling. Conclusions: EIVD demonstrated that UHFRT for breast cancer results in less FFs compared to standard HFRT. A large proportion of this decrease could be explained by using daily online IGRT.
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.