Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36196407›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2022

Integrated scoring approach to assess radiotherapy plan quality for breast cancer treatment.

Karunakaran Balaji, Velayudham Ramasubramanian

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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. Article
  2. Article
  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karunakaran BalajiSchool of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.
Velayudham RamasubramanianSchool of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.
Global Hospitals · INVellore Institute of Technology University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Proposal of an integrated scoring approach assessing the quality of different treatment techniques in a radiotherapy planning comparison. This scoring method incorporates all dosimetric indices of planning target volumes (PTVs) as well as organs at risk (OARs) and provides a single quantitative measure to select an ideal plan. Materials and methods: The radiotherapy planning techniques compared were field-in-field (FinF), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), hybrid IMRT (H-IMRT), and hybrid VMAT (H-VMAT). These plans were generated for twenty-five locally advanced left-sided breast cancer patients. The PTVs were prescribed a hypofractionation dose of 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions. The integrated score for each planning technique was calculated using the proposed formula. Results: An integrated score value that is close to zero indicates a superior plan. The integrated score that incorporates all dosimetric indices (PTVs and OARs) were 1.37, 1.64, 1.72, 1.18, and 1.24 for FinF, IMRT, VMAT, H-IMRT, and H-VMAT plans, respectively. Conclusion: The proposed integrated scoring approach is scientific to select a better plan and flexible to incorporate the patient-specific clinical demands. This simple tool is useful to quantify the treatment techniques and able to differentiate the acceptable and unacceptable plans.

Indexed as

breast cancerdosimetric indexIMRTintegrated scoreVMAT

Identifiers

PMID36196407
PMCPMC9521686
OpenAlexW4302275078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.