| Title |
Objective assessment of cosmetic outcome after targeted intraoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-013-2641-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammed R. S. Keshtgar, Norman R. Williams, Max Bulsara, Christobel Saunders, Henrik Flyger, Jaime S. Cardoso, Tammy Corica, Neils Bentzon, Nikolaos V. Michalopoulos, David J. Joseph |
| Abstract |
The international randomised targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) trial has demonstrated evidence of non-inferiority between the novel technique of TARGIT (intra-operative radiotherapy with Intrabeam(®)) and conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in women with early breast cancer in terms of the primary outcome measure of risk of local relapse within the treated breast. Cosmesis is an increasingly important outcome of breast conserving treatment with both surgery and radiotherapy contributing to this. It was unknown if the single high dose of TARGIT may lead to damaging fibrosis and thus impair cosmesis further, so we objectively evaluated the aesthetic outcome of patients within the TARGIT randomised controlled trial. We have used an objective assessment tool for evaluation of cosmetic outcome. Frontal digital photographs were taken at baseline (before TARGIT or EBRT) and yearly thereafter for up to 5 years. The photographs were analysed by BCCT.core, a validated software which produces a composite score based on symmetry, colour and scar. 342 patients were assessed, median age at baseline 64 years (IQR 59-68). The scores were dichotomised into Excellent and Good (EG), and Fair and Poor (FP). There were statistically significant increases in the odds of having an outcome of EG for patients in the TARGIT group relative to the EBRT group at year 1 (OR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.12-3.85, p = 0.021) and year 2 (OR 2.11, 95 % CI 1.0-4.45, p = 0.05). Following a totally objective assessment in a randomised setting, the aesthetic outcome of patients demonstrates that those treated with TARGIT have a superior cosmetic result to those patients who received conventional external beam radiotherapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 42% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,450,815
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#366
of 4,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,238
of 197,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#7
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.