MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416405366 · doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2025.101077

Impact of excluding internal mammary node coverage on musculoskeletal dosimetry in breast radiotherapy

2025· article· en· W4416405366 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen Lowell Ciocon, Antonio de la Pena Villarreal, Grace Lee, Randa Kamel, Mohammad Arifur Rahman, Leigh Conroy, Robert Bleakney, Jennifer Croke, Anne Koch, Emma Mauti, Jennifer M. Jones, Eugene Chang, Melissa Weidman, Wey L. Leong, Zhihui Amy Liu, Xiang Y. Ye, Jennifer Kwan, Fei‐Fei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Radiation Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationUniversity of TorontoAmerican Association for Cancer ResearchAstraZenecaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDosimetryRetrospective cohort studyProspective cohort studyRadiation therapyMammary glandBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Breast cancer radiotherapy (RT) can lead to shoulder complications including weakness, restricted motion, and discomfort, affecting up to 40% of patients. The necessity to include the internal mammary nodes (IMNs) during breast and nodal irradiation for every patient remains under discussion, particularly for early-stage breast cancers. The dosimetric effect on nearby musculoskeletal (MSK) structures when targeting the IMNs remains to be completely understood; hence the focus of this current study. Methods: This retrospective study included breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy and nodal sampling followed by adjuvant hypofractionated whole breast and regional nodal RT (4005 cGy in 15 fractions) who were treated between January 1, 2022, and November 30, 2023 at a single institution. MSK structures such as the bones (ribs, scapula), muscles (pectoralis, rhomboids), and joints (glenohumeral, acromioclavicular) were retrospectively contoured on the CT simulation images. Two RT plans (one with and one without IMN coverage) were created, and dosimetric parameters including mean (Dmean), near maximum (D2), near minimum (D98) and volumes received 15, 20 and 40 Gy (V15, V20, V40) were compared. Standardized mean difference between the plans was calculated for each dosimetric parameter, and Wilxocon's signed-rank test was used for comparison. Univariable linear regression analysis was used to identify patient and tumor factors that were associated with more significant dosimetric differences. Results: A total of 30 breast cancer patients with a median age of 63 (range 30-82 years) were selected for analysis. The location of tumours included 15 (50 %) in the right breast, and 15 (50 %) in the left breast; with 10 (33 %) centrally, 10 (33 %) medially, and 10 (33 %) were laterally-located within the breast. The pathologic T stage included 6 (20 %) T0/Tis, 11 (37 %) T1, and 13 (43 %) T2. Seven patients (23 %) were N0, 19 (63 %) were N1, and 4 (13 %) were N2a. Nine patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 11 neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 10 patients received no chemotherapy.The exclusion of IMN coverage led to significantly decreased Dmean for muscle groups in the posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior and antero-lateral-posterior regions. Specifically, the largest absolute reductions included teres major (Dmean 340 cGy), subscapularis (320 cGy), serratus anterior (241 cGy), latissimus dorsi (232 cGy), chestwall (209 cGy), and the pectoralis minor (37 cGy) muscles. Significant differences were also observed for V40 and V15 of pectoralis minor (V40 of 12 %), pectoralis major (V40 of 10 %), and for both subscapularis and teres major (V15 of 8 %) muscles.Patient factors that were associated with greater dosimetric differences included younger age, larger breast size, larger tumor cavity, and non-central tumor locations. Conclusion: dosmetric analysis clearly demonstrated that excluding IMN coverage for breast RT significantly reduced the dose received by the MSK structures of the neck, chest wall, and shoulder, particularly in the posterior muscle groups. Future research with larger cohorts and prospective designs would be required to validate these dosimetric benefits and their relationship to MSK-related side effects post-radiotherapy.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational Radiation OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207