MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117301293 · doi:10.1017/s1460396925100332

Shoulder muscle radiation dose: Impact of radiation technique and patient positioning during breast radiotherapy

2025· article· en· W7117301293 on OpenAlexaff
Tea Lulic-Kuryllo, Nolan Hutton, Ayesha Vavda, Mia Fluit, Nizar Saadeldeen, Johnson Darko, Ernest Osei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiotherapy in Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionRadiation therapyPectoralis major musclePectoralis MuscleBreast cancerShoulder joint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Radiotherapy (RT) is a highly effective breast cancer treatment. However, RT can deliver radiation dose to the healthy tissues of the shoulder, increasing the potential for long-term shoulder morbidity. This study compared the dose delivered to key shoulder muscles between common RT techniques and patient positioning. Methods: The treatment plans of 54 patients were analysed, including those treated in the prone and supine positions. Eight shoulder muscles were contoured on each patient’s computer tomography scan. The following breast treatment techniques were analysed: hybrid-intensity-modulated RT (hybrid IMRT), wedged field, two partial arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), hybrid VMAT, and 3-field supraclavicular technique. Moreover, the effect of patient positioning was also evaluated (supine versus prone). Muscle radiation exposure was compared for the mean dose and the percent muscle volume exposed to V 15 Gy and V 30 Gy. Results: The mean dose and exposed volume for the pectoralis major and pectoralis minor were similar between hybrid IMRT, wedged field, VMAT, and hybrid VMAT. VMAT and hybrid VMAT delivered a greater mean dose to most posterior shoulder muscles compared to hybrid IMRT, though overall exposure remained generally low for these muscles. The 3-field supraclavicular technique increased radiation exposure to all shoulder muscles, particularly to the pectoralis major, the pectoralis minor and the supraspinatus. Prone positioning significantly reduced V 15 Gy and V 30 Gy exposure for both anterior and posterior shoulder muscles. Conclusion: Shoulder muscle exposure was similar between hybrid IMRT, wedged field, VMAT and hybrid VMAT. The anterior shoulder muscles were consistently exposed to radiation with all RT techniques investigated in this study. In comparison, the 3-field supraclavicular technique substantially increased the radiation exposure to the posterior shoulder muscles. Lastly, delivering radiation in the prone position spared the anterior and posterior shoulder muscles. These findings inform treatment planning decisions aimed at mitigating the risk of long-term shoulder dysfunction.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiotherapy in PracticeSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207