ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Geometrical and dosimetrical evaluation of different interpretations of a european consensus delineation guideline for the internal mammary lymph node chain in breast cancer patients.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: This study aimed at investigating the dosimetric impact on organs at risk, when the left-sided internal mammary lymph nodes (IMN) were delineated with two interpretations of the same guideline. Materials and Methods: The cohort consisted of 95 left-sided breast cancer patients with indication for irradiation of the CTVn_IMN treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). The NKI interpretation of the ESTRO guidelines was in the clinical structure sets (CTVn_IMN_NKI). A deep learning model was used as second interpretation of the guideline, based on a Danish consensus interpretation (CTVn_IMN_DK). The geometrical similarity was evaluated with the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), volume, width, distance to sternal bone (SB) and maximum distance between the interpretations in the medial direction. Treatment plans were generated for both CTVn_IMNs. Mean heart dose (MHD) was correlated with the geometrical metrics. Results: 62 patients were eligible for analysis. The geometric comparison showed a median volume of 9.59 ml/7.19 ml for the CTVN_IMN_NKI/CTVn_IMN_DK along with a median DSC of 0.63. The width and distance from SB were significantly different, with a median width of 18.2 mm/14.7 mm and distance to SB of 3.4 mm/5.1 mm for CTVn_IMN_NKI/CTVn_IMN_DK. The MHD was significantly higher with the CTVn_IMN_NKI. The strongest correlation was found between MHD and maximum medial difference between the CTVn_IMN in slices where the heart was present. Conclusions: Differences in interpretations of the CTVn_IMN delineation guidelines were found, resulting in significant differences in MHD. For the individual patients, the dosimetric differences may impact treatment decisions, underscoring the need for strong consensus across borders.
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.