使用新型不透射线细丝标记物与靶向乳腺癌症放射治疗的手术夹的肿瘤床划定的比较。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-13 DOI:10.1097/COC.0000000000001028
Utkarsh Shukla, Ulrich W Langner, David Linshaw, Sydney Tan, Kathryn E Huber, Chelsea J Miller, Esther Yu, Kara L Leonard, Mark Sueyoshi, Brett Diamond, David Edmonson, David E Wazer, Jennifer Gass, Jaroslaw T Hepel
{"title":"使用新型不透射线细丝标记物与靶向乳腺癌症放射治疗的手术夹的肿瘤床划定的比较。","authors":"Utkarsh Shukla,&nbsp;Ulrich W Langner,&nbsp;David Linshaw,&nbsp;Sydney Tan,&nbsp;Kathryn E Huber,&nbsp;Chelsea J Miller,&nbsp;Esther Yu,&nbsp;Kara L Leonard,&nbsp;Mark Sueyoshi,&nbsp;Brett Diamond,&nbsp;David Edmonson,&nbsp;David E Wazer,&nbsp;Jennifer Gass,&nbsp;Jaroslaw T Hepel","doi":"10.1097/COC.0000000000001028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accuracy of tumor bed (TB) delineation is essential for targeting boost doses or partial breast irradiation. Multiple studies have shown high interobserver variability with standardly used surgical clip markers (CMs). We hypothesize that a radiopaque filament marker (FM) woven along the TB will improve TB delineation consistency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An FDA-approved FM was intraoperatively used to outline the TB of patients undergoing lumpectomy. Between January 2020 and January 2022, consecutive patients with FM placed after either (1) lumpectomy or (2) lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction were identified and compared with those with CM. Six \"experts\" (radiation oncologists specializing in breast cancer) across 2 institutions independently defined all TBs. Three metrics (volume variance, dice coefficient, and center of mass [COM] deviation). Two-tailed paired samples t tests were performed to compare FM and CM cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight total patients were evaluated (14 FM and 14 CM). In aggregate, differences in volume between expert contours were 29.7% (SD ± 58.8%) with FM and 55.4% (SD ± 105.9%) with CM ( P < 0.001). The average dice coefficient in patients with FM was 0.54 (SD ± 0.15), and with CM was 0.44 (SD ± 0.22) ( P < 0.001). The average COM deviation was 0.63 cm (SD ± 0.53 cm) for FM and 1.05 cm (SD ± 0.93 cm) for CM; ( P < 0.001). In the subset of patients who underwent lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction, the difference in average volume was 21.8% (SD ± 20.4%) with FM and 52.2% (SD ± 64.5%) with CM ( P <0.001). The average dice coefficient was 0.53 (SD ± 0.12) for FM versus 0.39 (SD ± 0.24) for CM ( P < 0.001). The average COM difference was 0.53 cm (SD ± 0.29 cm) with FM versus 1.25 cm (SD ± 1.08 cm) with CM ( P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FM consistently outperformed CM in the setting of both standard lumpectomy and complex oncoplastic reconstruction. These data suggest the superiority of FM in TB delineation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50812,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Tumor Bed Delineation Using a Novel Radiopaque Filament Marker Versus Surgical Clips for Targeting Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"Utkarsh Shukla,&nbsp;Ulrich W Langner,&nbsp;David Linshaw,&nbsp;Sydney Tan,&nbsp;Kathryn E Huber,&nbsp;Chelsea J Miller,&nbsp;Esther Yu,&nbsp;Kara L Leonard,&nbsp;Mark Sueyoshi,&nbsp;Brett Diamond,&nbsp;David Edmonson,&nbsp;David E Wazer,&nbsp;Jennifer Gass,&nbsp;Jaroslaw T Hepel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/COC.0000000000001028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accuracy of tumor bed (TB) delineation is essential for targeting boost doses or partial breast irradiation. Multiple studies have shown high interobserver variability with standardly used surgical clip markers (CMs). We hypothesize that a radiopaque filament marker (FM) woven along the TB will improve TB delineation consistency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An FDA-approved FM was intraoperatively used to outline the TB of patients undergoing lumpectomy. Between January 2020 and January 2022, consecutive patients with FM placed after either (1) lumpectomy or (2) lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction were identified and compared with those with CM. Six \\\"experts\\\" (radiation oncologists specializing in breast cancer) across 2 institutions independently defined all TBs. Three metrics (volume variance, dice coefficient, and center of mass [COM] deviation). Two-tailed paired samples t tests were performed to compare FM and CM cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight total patients were evaluated (14 FM and 14 CM). In aggregate, differences in volume between expert contours were 29.7% (SD ± 58.8%) with FM and 55.4% (SD ± 105.9%) with CM ( P < 0.001). The average dice coefficient in patients with FM was 0.54 (SD ± 0.15), and with CM was 0.44 (SD ± 0.22) ( P < 0.001). The average COM deviation was 0.63 cm (SD ± 0.53 cm) for FM and 1.05 cm (SD ± 0.93 cm) for CM; ( P < 0.001). In the subset of patients who underwent lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction, the difference in average volume was 21.8% (SD ± 20.4%) with FM and 52.2% (SD ± 64.5%) with CM ( P <0.001). The average dice coefficient was 0.53 (SD ± 0.12) for FM versus 0.39 (SD ± 0.24) for CM ( P < 0.001). The average COM difference was 0.53 cm (SD ± 0.29 cm) with FM versus 1.25 cm (SD ± 1.08 cm) with CM ( P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FM consistently outperformed CM in the setting of both standard lumpectomy and complex oncoplastic reconstruction. These data suggest the superiority of FM in TB delineation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001028\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肿瘤床(TB)描绘的准确性对于靶向增强剂量或部分乳腺照射至关重要。多项研究表明,标准使用的手术夹标记物(CM)具有较高的观察者间变异性。我们假设沿着TB编织的不透射线细丝标记物(FM)将提高TB描绘的一致性。方法:术中使用美国食品药品监督管理局批准的FM来概述接受肿瘤切除术的患者的结核病。在2020年1月至2022年1月期间,确定了连续接受(1)肿块切除术或(2)肿块切除并进行肿瘤成形术重建的FM患者,并将其与CM患者进行比较。两个机构的六名“专家”(专门研究癌症乳腺癌的放射肿瘤学家)独立定义了所有TB。三个指标(体积方差、骰子系数和质心[COM]偏差)。双尾配对样本t检验用于比较FM和CM队列。结果:共有28名患者接受了评估(14名FM和14名CM)。总的来说,FM和CM的专家轮廓之间的体积差异分别为29.7%(SD±58.8%)和55.4%(SD±105.9%)(P<0.001)。FM患者的平均骰子系数为0.54(SD±0.15),CM患者的平均dice系数为0.44(SD?.22)(P<0.000)。FM和CM患者的COM平均偏差分别为0.63cm(SD±0.53cm)和1.05cm(SD±0.93cm);(P<0.001)。在接受肿块切除和肿瘤整形重建的患者亚群中,FM和CM的平均体积差异为21.8%(SD±20.4%)和52.2%(SD±64.5%)(P结论:FM在标准肿块切除和复杂肿瘤整形重建方面始终优于CM。这些数据表明FM在结核病描绘方面的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Tumor Bed Delineation Using a Novel Radiopaque Filament Marker Versus Surgical Clips for Targeting Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.

Background: Accuracy of tumor bed (TB) delineation is essential for targeting boost doses or partial breast irradiation. Multiple studies have shown high interobserver variability with standardly used surgical clip markers (CMs). We hypothesize that a radiopaque filament marker (FM) woven along the TB will improve TB delineation consistency.

Methods: An FDA-approved FM was intraoperatively used to outline the TB of patients undergoing lumpectomy. Between January 2020 and January 2022, consecutive patients with FM placed after either (1) lumpectomy or (2) lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction were identified and compared with those with CM. Six "experts" (radiation oncologists specializing in breast cancer) across 2 institutions independently defined all TBs. Three metrics (volume variance, dice coefficient, and center of mass [COM] deviation). Two-tailed paired samples t tests were performed to compare FM and CM cohorts.

Results: Twenty-eight total patients were evaluated (14 FM and 14 CM). In aggregate, differences in volume between expert contours were 29.7% (SD ± 58.8%) with FM and 55.4% (SD ± 105.9%) with CM ( P < 0.001). The average dice coefficient in patients with FM was 0.54 (SD ± 0.15), and with CM was 0.44 (SD ± 0.22) ( P < 0.001). The average COM deviation was 0.63 cm (SD ± 0.53 cm) for FM and 1.05 cm (SD ± 0.93 cm) for CM; ( P < 0.001). In the subset of patients who underwent lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction, the difference in average volume was 21.8% (SD ± 20.4%) with FM and 52.2% (SD ± 64.5%) with CM ( P <0.001). The average dice coefficient was 0.53 (SD ± 0.12) for FM versus 0.39 (SD ± 0.24) for CM ( P < 0.001). The average COM difference was 0.53 cm (SD ± 0.29 cm) with FM versus 1.25 cm (SD ± 1.08 cm) with CM ( P < 0.001).

Conclusion: FM consistently outperformed CM in the setting of both standard lumpectomy and complex oncoplastic reconstruction. These data suggest the superiority of FM in TB delineation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
130
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​American Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal for cancer surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, and pediatric oncologists. The emphasis of AJCO is on combined modality multidisciplinary loco-regional management of cancer. The journal also gives emphasis to translational research, outcome studies, and cost utility analyses, and includes opinion pieces and review articles. The editorial board includes a large number of distinguished surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, pediatric oncologists, and others who are internationally recognized for expertise in their fields.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Radiotherapy as a Standalone Treatment Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer: A SEER Database Analysis. Mortality Patterns of Esophageal Cancer in the United States: A 21-Year Retrospective Analysis. Wilms' Tumor 1-Associating Protein Promotes Nonsmall-Cell Lung Cancer Through the Expression of Carcinoembryonic Antigen-Related Cell Adhesion Molecule 5. Modifiable Lifestyle Risk Factors in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Nationally Representative Study. Rituximab as a Therapeutic Strategy in Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: Efficacy, Outcomes, and Survival-Insights From a Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1