ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Dosimetric and On-treatment Clinical Results of a Volumetric-based Skin-sparing Planning Technique for Patients Treated to the Breast and Chest Wall With Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluates the hypothesis that a volumetric skin-sparing planning technique (SSPT) will reduce acute dermatitis in patients treated to the breast or chest wall (CW) with proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS). Methods and Materials: In January 2022, our center incorporated volumetric-based skin-sparing objectives in addition to skin hot spot evaluation as an SSPT. The SSPT incorporated an objective to limit the volume of a skin evaluation structure (skin-eval) receiving 95% of the prescription dose or more (V95%Rx) to ideally < 50%. We compared target coverage, robustness, skin-eval dosimetry, and acute on-treatment skin toxicity in patients treated with and without incorporation of this SSPT. Patients with skin/dermal lymphatic invasion or inflammatory breast cancer were excluded. Results: A total of 84 patients who received breast/CW PBS were included (43 planned without and 41 with the SSPT). There was no difference in percentages of patients treated with intact breast/CW/immediate CW reconstruction between groups. Mean skin-evalV95%Rx was 72% vs 30%, Conclusions: The use of an SSPT may reduce acute skin toxicity in patients with breast cancer treated with PBS.
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.