Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36741008›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Reconstructive complications and early toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with proton-based postmastectomy radiation therapy.

Mutlay Sayan, Lara Hathout, Sarah S Kilic, Imraan Jan, Ambroise Gilles, Natalie Hassell, Maria Kowzun, Mridula George, Lindsay Potdevin, Shicha Kumar and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Evidence-based indications for proton therapy in adults determined using the GRADE approach.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors.

Mutlay SayanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Lara HathoutDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Sarah S KilicDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Imraan JanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Ambroise GillesDivision of Plastic Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Natalie HassellDivision of Plastic Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Maria KowzunDepartments of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Mridula GeorgeDepartments of Medicine, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Lindsay PotdevinDepartments of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Shicha KumarDepartments of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Jeremy SinkinDivision of Plastic Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Richard AgagDivision of Plastic Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Bruce G HafftyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Nisha OhriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and increases overall survival rates in patients with high-risk node positive breast cancer. While the number of breast cancer patients treated with proton-based PMRT has increased in recent years, there is limited data on the use of proton therapy in the postmastectomy with reconstruction setting. In this study, we compared acute toxicities and reconstructive complications in patients treated with proton-based and photon-based PMRT. Methods: A retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy with implant or autologous reconstruction followed by PMRT from 2015 to 2020. Baseline clinical, disease, and treatment related factors were compared between the photon-based and proton-based PMRT groups. Early toxicity outcomes and reconstructive complications following PMRT were graded by the treating physician. Results: A total of 11 patients treated with proton-based PMRT and 26 patients treated with photon-based PMRT were included with a median follow-up of 7.4 months (range, 0.7-33 months). Six patients (55%) in the proton group had a history of breast cancer (3 ipsilateral and 3 contralateral) and received previous RT 38 months ago (median, range 7-85). There was no significant difference in mean PMRT (p = 0.064) and boost dose (p = 0.608) between the two groups. Grade 2 skin toxicity was the most common acute toxicity in both groups (55% and 73% in the proton and photon group, respectively) (p = 0.077). Three patients (27%) in the proton group developed grade 3 skin toxicity. No Grade 4 acute toxicity was reported in either group. Reconstructive complications occurred in 4 patients (36%) in the proton group and 8 patients (31%) in photon group (p = 0.946). Conclusions: Acute skin toxicity remains the most frequent adverse event in both proton- and photon-based PMRT. In our study, reconstructive complications were not significantly higher in patients treated with proton- versus photon-based PMRT. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess late toxicities.

Indexed as

breastcarcinomamastectomyprotonradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36741008
PMCPMC9895832

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.