Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41065319›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Dosimetric evaluation of surface-guided tattoo-free approach for right sided whole-breast irradiation.

Xinxin Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Swati Mamidanna, Yin Zhang, Xiao Wang, Ning J Yue, Shicha Kumar, Maria J Kowzun, Lindsay Potdevin, Mridula George and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Xinxin ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3667-9302
Chengzhu ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Swati MamidannaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8963-6176
Yin ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Xiao WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1973-0313
Ning J YueDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Shicha KumarDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Maria J KowzunDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Lindsay PotdevinDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Mridula GeorgeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Lara HathoutDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Bruce HafftyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Nisha OhriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIn preparation for adjuvant breast radiation therapy (RT), permanent skin tattoo marks are often placed on the patient's skin to assist patient positioning on the treatment couch. However, those marks are often undesirable, in particular, for breast cancer patients due to various cosmetic and psychological concerns and other drawbacks. With surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) being readily available, it becomes possible to adopt a "tattoo-free" approach for patient setup. This study evaluates the efficacy and dosimetric implications of a tattoo-free setup technique.

methodsThirty right-sided breast cancer patients were included in this retrospective study. All patients received an initial course of whole breast treatment of 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions using a tangential 3D conformal technique, followed by a 10 Gy boost to the lumpectomy site in four fractions. SGRT was used in daily setup to reproduce patient's positioning between the simulation and treatment. The patient's breast surface was aligned with the corresponding reference breast surface generated from the planning computed tomography (CT) images via AlignRT system. To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of the new tattoo-free approach, at the beginning of the program and for this group of patients, daily orthogonal kV imaging pair was performed to confirm the treatment positioning by verifying the bony landmarks, and the translational couch shifts were recorded for every fraction. Those shifts were applied to the isocenter positions of the original corresponding clinical treatment plans, and dose distributions were re-computed. The dosimetric evaluation between the two setup methods, that is, the breast surface alignment versus the bony landmark alignment, were then assessed on the original clinical plan. New plan sums were obtained from the 16 fractions, where each one was recalculated based on the new isocenter positions determined with the kV imaging shifts. Boost fractions were excluded in this study, as setup was verified using surgical clips as the matching reference.

resultsTranslational shifts for the 30 patients (N = 480) were reviewed. The mean absolute shift resulted from the orthogonal kV imaging-based setup following the SGRT setup, in lateral, vertical and longitudinal directions, were 0.20 cm (ranged from 0 to 1.98 cm with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.18-0.22 cm), 0.23 cm (ranged from 0-1.25 cm with 95% CI of 0.21-0.25 cm), and 0.22 cm (ranged from 0 to 1.35 cm with 95% CI of 0.19-0.24 cm), respectively. The average change in V95% coverage over the treatment course of the 30 patients was 0.99%. No significant differences in V20Gy of lung (%) and mean heart dose were observed between the original and the corresponding shifted plans.

conclusionA SGRT based tattoo-free setup approach was clinically evaluated and compared to a kV orthogonal imaging-based approach for whole breast RT treatment. It was found that the tattoo-free setup approach is acceptable in treatment setup accuracy and dosimetric coverage. Caution needs to be paid to patient movement during setup and treatment to ensure the safety and efficacy of the approach.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTattooingUnilateral Breast NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskPatient PositioningRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computeddosimetric evaluationsurface‐guided radiation therapytattoo‐less

Identifiers

PMID41065319
PMCPMC12509240

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.