ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2023
Cardiac protective techniques in left breast radiotherapy: rapid selection criteria for routine clinical decision making.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robustness of Machine Learning Predictions for Determining Whether Deep Inspiration Breath-Hold Is Required in Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of deep inspiration breath hold, surface-guided radiotherapy, and daily CBCT on the organs at risk in breast cancer radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Time Matters: A Review of Current Radiotherapy Practices and Efficiency Strategies.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
- Machine Learning-based Prediction of Mean Heart Dose and Deep Inspiration Breath-hold Selection in Left-sided Breast Cancer Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Radiotherapy Planning.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn left breast radiotherapy (RT) desired heart doses may be achieved without heart-sparing RT techniques in some patients. We aimed to examine the existence of predictive factors and cutoff points to determine which patients are the main candidates for heart-sparing RT techniques. MATERIAL AND
methodDosimetric data for left breast cancer was examined. RT plans were made at conventional doses to the breast and peripheral lymph nodes. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
result114 cases were evaluated by ROC (Receiver operating characteristic) analysis in the breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy groups. While only left lung volume (AUC: 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.87, p = 0.002) was significant in BCS cases, in cases with mastectomy, left lung volume (AUC: 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.002) and lung/heart volume ratio (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, p = 0.001) had a significant relationship with the relevance of heart doses. The cutoff point of 1.92 was selected for the lung/heart volume ratio for the mastectomized patients. Moreover, the cutoff point 1154 cc and 1208 cc was determined for the left lung volume for the BCS and mastectomized patients, respectively.
conclusionVarious cutoff points in left breast RT can be used to predict whether RT plans will meet QUANTEC (Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic) heart dose limits. Evaluating only these few cutoff points before planning makes it possible to eliminate 70% of patients with BCS and 40% of patients with mastectomy from respiratory-controlled methods, which require time and effort. Patients with lung volume and lung/heart volume ratio smaller than the cutoff values can be considered primary candidates for heart-sparing techniques.
Indexed as
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.