Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35861936›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022

Evaluation of breast cosmetic changes with a computer-software; the breast cancer conservative treatment cosmetic results (BCCT. core) in hypofractionated whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery-supplementary analysis of multicenter single-arm confirmatory trial: JCOG0906.

Miwako Nozaki, Yoshikazu Kagami, Mitsuhiro Takahashi, Ryunosuke Machida, Yuta Sekino, Taro Shibata, Yoshinori Ito, Yasumasa Nishimura, Teruki Teshima, Hiroki Ushijima and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 55% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

22 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.

Miwako NozakiDepartment of Radiology, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Minami-Koshigaya 2-1-50, Koshigaya, Saitama, 343-8555, Japan. miwako@dokkyomed.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1354-0108
Yoshikazu KagamiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsuhiro TakahashiDepartment of Radiology, Kiryu Kosei General Hospital, Gunma, Japan.
Ryunosuke MachidaJapan Clinical Oncology Group Data Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuta SekinoJapan Clinical Oncology Group Data Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Taro ShibataJapan Clinical Oncology Group Data Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshinori ItoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasumasa NishimuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka-Sayama, Japan.
Teruki TeshimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan.
Hiroki UshijimaDivision of Radiation Oncology, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan.
Yasushi NagataDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yasuo MatsumotoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, Japan.
Tetsuo AkimotoDivision of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Kana TakahashiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigeyuki MurayamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Takashi UnoDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan.
Kayoko TsujinoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo, Japan.
Yasushi HamamotoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Ehime, Japan.
Keiichi NakagawaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Takeshi KodairaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Masahiro HiraokaJapanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan.
Radiation Therapy Study Group, Japan Clinical Oncology Group
Showa University · JPChiba University · JPJapan Clinical Cancer Research Organization · JPJapanese Red Cross Society Wakayama Medical Center · JPAichi Cancer Center · JPDokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center · JPHiroshima University · JPHyogo Prefectural Cancer Center · JPKindai University · JPNational Cancer Center Hospital East · JPNiigata Cancer Center Hospital · JPOsaka International Cancer Institute · JPSaitama Cancer Center · JPShikoku Cancer Center · JPShizuoka Cancer Center · JPTokyo National Hospital · JPUniversity of Tokyo Hospital · JPSapporo Kosei General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA good cosmetic outcome has been defined as an important endpoint in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Various evaluation methods have been studied, but the optimal method has yet to be identified. The present supplementary analysis of JCOG0906 focused on comparing evaluation methods for breast cosmetic outcomes following hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HFWBI) to examine whether a computer-software (the Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT. core])-based program evaluation (CE) can be used for Asian women in clinical trials of BCT.

methodsOf 306 women, 292 underwent institutional evaluation (IE) for breast cosmetic outcomes before (pre) and 3 years after (post) HFWBI using a 4-point scale (excellent/good/fair/poor), and they were evaluated by CE and a central panel evaluation (PE) on the same scale using 292 pairs of pre/post-HFWBI photographs. PE was performed twice by consensus of the same two experts with a 3-year interval. CE was assessed individually by two radiation oncologists, an expert and a non-expert. Intra-observer variability and inter-observer variability were calculated using the kappa (k) and weighted kappa (wk) statistics.

resultsThe agreement between the first and second PE using pre/post-HFWBI photographs was moderate (k = 0.60, wk = 0.64. k = 0.53, wk = 0.60). The agreement between the expert and non-expert on CE was substantial (k = 0.72, wk = 0.76. k = 0.72, wk = 0.77). The inter-observer variability of CE was smaller than the intra-observer variability of PE.

conclusionCE with BCCT. core was considered a reproducible and an appropriate evaluation method for Asian women in clinical trials of BCT, when breast cosmetic changes were compared between pre/post therapy.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMastectomy, SegmentalComputersConservative TreatmentEstheticsFemaleHumansPhotographySoftwareTreatment OutcomeBCCT. core softwareBreast-conserving therapyBreast cosmetic evaluationHypofractionated whole breast irradiation

Identifiers

PMID35861936
OpenAlexW4286491291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.