ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology
Review of Current Accepted Practices in Identification of the Breast Lumpectomy Tumor Bed.
Review in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of breast conserving surgery-current implementation of oncoplastic techniques in breast conserving surgery: a literature review.Gland surgery · 2024Review
- Stabilised Hyaluronic Acid (sHA) gel as a novel marker for breast cancer tumour bed cavity: Surgical feasibility.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Feasibility of In Vivo Metal Artifact Reduction in Contrast-Enhanced Dedicated Spiral Breast Computed Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Of the 260,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer annually in the United States, more than 60% are treated with breast-conserving surgery or lumpectomy, followed by radiation to decrease the chance of local recurrence. More than 70% of breast cancer recurrences are localized to the original tumor cavity. Hence, targeted radiation therapy after lumpectomy is critical for recurrence prevention. With 30,000 patients annually opting for oncoplastic reconstruction of the breast after lumpectomy to improve cosmesis, the resulting tissue rearrangement increases the difficulty for radiation oncologists to accurately delineate the cavity when planning radiation therapy. Owing to the absence of a standardized protocol, it is important to assess the efficacy of various methods used to mark the tumor cavity for improved delineation. Methods and Materials: A keyword search and analysis was used to compile relevant articles on PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information). Results: Currently, a common practice for tumor cavity localization is applying titanium surgical clips to the borders of lumpectomy cavity. Tissue movement and seroma formation both impact the positioning of surgical clips within the tumor cavity and lead to significant interobserver variability. Furthermore, the main application of surgical clips is to control the small vessels during surgery, and that can create confusion when the same clips are used for tumor bed localization. All alternative solutions present more precise tumor bed delineation but possess individual concerns with workflow integration, patient comfort, and accuracy. Though liquid-based fiducials were found to be the most effective for delineating tumor cavities, there are still drawbacks for clinical use. Conclusions: These findings should encourage medical innovators to develop novel techniques for tumor cavity marking to increase delineation accuracy and effectively target at-risk tissue. Future solutions in this space should consider the properties of liquid-based fiducial markers to improve radiation oncologists' ability to precisely delineate the tumor cavity.
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.