↓ Skip to main content

Light and shadows of a new technique: is photon total-skin irradiation using helical IMRT feasible, less complex and as toxic as the electrons one?

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Light and shadows of a new technique: is photon total-skin irradiation using helical IMRT feasible, less complex and as toxic as the electrons one?
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-1100-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michela Buglione, Luigi Spiazzi, Mauro Urpis, Liliana Baushi, Rossella Avitabile, Nadia Pasinetti, Paolo Borghetti, Luca Triggiani, Sara Pedretti, Federica Saiani, Alfredo Fiume, Diana Greco, Stefano Ciccarelli, Alessia Polonini, Renzo Moretti, Stefano Maria Magrini

Abstract

Radiotherapy is one of the standard treatments for cutaneous lymphoma and Total Skin Electrons Beam Irradiation (TSEBI) is generally used to treat diffuse cutaneous lymphoma and some cases of localized disease. Helical IMRT (HI) allows to treat complex target with optimal dose distribution and organ at risk sparing, so helical tomotherapy has been proposed as alternative technique to TSEBI but only one preliminary report has been published. Three patients treated (from May 2013 to December 2014) with Helical IMRT, with a total dose between 24 and 30 Gy, were retrospectively evaluated. Data about dosimetric features, response and acute toxicity were registered and analyzed. Planned target coverage was compared with daily in vivo measures and dose calculation based on volumetric images used for set up evaluation as well. The patients had a mean measured surface fraction dose ranging from 1.54 Gy up to 2.0 Gy. A planned target dose ranging from 85 to 120% of prescription doses was obtained. All doses to Organs At Risk were within the required constraints. Particular attention was posed on "whole bone marrow" planned V10Gy, V12Gy and V20Gy values, ranging respectively between 23 and 43%, 20.1 and 38% and 9.8 and 24%. A comparison with the theoretical homologous values obtained with TSEBI has shown much lower values with TSEBI. Even if treatment was given in sequence to the skin of the upper and lower hemi-body, all the patients had anaemia, requiring blood transfusions, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia. Based on our limited results TSEBI should still be considered the standard method to treat total skin because of its pattern of acute and late toxicities and the dose distribution. In this particular case the better target coverage obtained with HI can be paid in terms of worse toxicity. Helical IMRT can instead be considered optimal in treating large, convex, cutaneous areas where it is difficult to use multiple electrons fields in relation with the clinical results and the limited and reversible toxicities.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Other 3 19%
Professor 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Psychology 2 13%
Materials Science 1 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,727
of 2,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,590
of 344,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#31
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,104 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 344,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.