Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36106550›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Four irradiation and three positioning techniques for whole-breast radiotherapy: Is sophisticated always better?

Max Schoepen, Bruno Speleers, Wilfried De Neve, Vincent Vakaet, Pieter Deseyne, Leen Paelinck, Annick Van Greveling, Liv Veldeman, Jan Detand, Werner De Gersem

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Max SchoepenDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Bruno SpeleersDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Wilfried De NeveDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Vincent VakaetDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter DeseyneDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Leen PaelinckDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Annick Van GrevelingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Liv VeldemanDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jan DetandDepartment of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Werner De GersemDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEGhent University Hospital · BEUniversity College West Flanders · BE

Funding

Fondation contre le Cancer (Stichting tegen kanker) C_2020_1377Fondation contre le Cancer (Stichting tegen kanker) FAF-C/2018/1190
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe report on a dosimetrical study of three patient positions (supine, prone dive, and prone crawl) and four irradiation techniques for whole-breast irradiation (WBI): wedged-tangential fields (W-TF), tangential-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT), multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT), and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). This is the first study to evaluate prone crawl positioning in WBI and the first study to quantify dosimetrical and anatomical differences with prone dive positioning.

methodsWe analyzed five datasets with left- and right-sided patients (n = 51). One dataset also included deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) data. A total of 252 new treatment plans were composed. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs). Furthermore, anatomical differences among patient positions were quantified to explain dosimetrical differences.

resultsTarget coverage was inferior for W-TF and supine position. W-TF proved overall inferior, and IMAT proved foremost effective in supine position. TF-IMRT proved competitive to the more demanding MB-IMRT and IMAT in prone dive, but not in prone crawl position. The lung-sparing effect was overall confirmed for both prone dive and prone crawl positioning and was largest for prone crawl. For the heart, no differences were found between prone dive and supine positioning, whereas prone crawl showed cardiac advantages, although minor compared to the established heart-sparing effect of DIBH. Dose differences for contralateral breast were minor among the patient positions. In prone crawl position, the ipsilateral breast sags deeper and the PTV is further away from the OARs than in prone dive position.

conclusionsThe prone dive and prone crawl position are valid alternatives to the supine position in WBI, with largest advantages for lung structures. For the heart, differences are small, which establishes the role of DIBH in different patient positions. These results may be of particular interest to radiotherapy centers with limited technical resources.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedUnilateral Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansOrgans at RiskProne PositionRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedbreast cancerDIBHIMATmulti-beamproneprone crawlradiotherapysupinetangential fields

Identifiers

PMID36106550
PMCPMC9680580
OpenAlexW4295904089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.