MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281554826 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1479

Effect of Supine vs Prone Breast Radiotherapy on Acute Toxic Effects of the Skin Among Women With Large Breast Size

2022· article· en· W4281554826 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danny Vesprini, Melanie Davidson, Sandi Bosnic, Pauline T. Truong, Isabelle Vallières, Louis Fenkell, D Comsa, Medhat El-Mallah, Lourdes R. García, Christiaan Stevens, Keith Nakonechny, William T. Tran, Alex Kiss, Eileen Rakovitch, Jean‐Philippe Pignol

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaHealth Sciences CentreSouthlake Regional Health CenterDalhousie UniversityRegional Municipality of DurhamUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSupine positionProne positionRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerRandomizationRegimenInternal medicineSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Women with large breast size treated with adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) have a high rate of acute toxic effects of the skin. Breast RT in the prone position is one strategy that may decrease these toxic effects. Objective: To determine if breast RT in the prone position reduces acute toxic effects of the skin when compared with treatment in the supine position. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, multicenter, single-blind randomized clinical trial accrued patients from 5 centers across Canada from April 2013 to March 2018 to compare acute toxic effects of breast RT for women with large breast size (bra band ≥40 in and/or ≥D cup) in the prone vs supine positions. A total of 378 patients were referred for adjuvant RT and underwent randomization. Seven patients randomized to supine position were excluded (5 declined treatment and 2 withdrew consent), and 14 patients randomized to prone position were excluded (4 declined treatment, 3 had unacceptable cardiac dose, and 7 were unable to tolerate being prone). Data were analyzed from April 2019 through September 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to RT in the supine or prone position. From April 2013 until June 2016, all patients (n = 167) received 50 Gy in 25 fractions (extended fractionation) with or without boost (range, 10-16 Gy). After trial amendment in June 2016, the majority of patients (177 of 190 [93.2%]) received the hypofractionation regimen of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome was moist desquamation (desquamation). Results: Of the 357 women (mean [SD] age, 61 [9.9] years) included in the analysis, 182 (51.0%) were treated in the supine position and 175 (49.0%) in prone. There was statistically significantly more desquamation in patients treated in the supine position compared with prone (72 of 182 [39.6%] patients vs 47 of 175 [26.9%] patients; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.56; P = .002), which was confirmed on multivariable analysis (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001), along with other independent factors: use of boost (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.95-3.77; P < .001), extended fractionation (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.41-5.79; P = .004), and bra size (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.50-4.37; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial confirms that treatment in the prone position decreases desquamation in women with large breast size receiving adjuvant RT. It also shows increased toxic effects using an RT boost and conventional fractionation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01815476.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207