Loading…
Estimating the skin dose near to the applicator and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients: An intraoperative electron radiotherapy technique
Introduction: Intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) is one of the most recently popular therapeutic methods for breast cancer. This study aimed to measure the skin dose near the applicator during IOERT of breast cancer patients, as well as, the incidence of acute toxicity after surgery....
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of cancer research and therapeutics 2023-07, Vol.19 (3), p.650-656 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486i-5a9c01f9dc600ec94cc91804859244902993626603755de723b3569c488431613 |
| container_end_page | 656 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 650 |
| container_title | Journal of cancer research and therapeutics |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | Mirkazemi, Maryam Mahdavi, Seyed Nafissi, Nahid Monfared, Ali Ghoreishi, Seyedeh Gorji, Kourosh |
| description | Introduction: Intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) is one of the most recently popular therapeutic methods for breast cancer. This study aimed to measure the skin dose near the applicator during IOERT of breast cancer patients, as well as, the incidence of acute toxicity after surgery.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six female patients participated in the current study with the prescribed dose of 21 and 12 Gy for IOERT as full and boost, respectively. The skin dose was investigated based on different applicator sizes, tumor bed thicknesses, and monitor units (MUs). The energy was chosen 8 MeV, and EBT3 film was used for the dosimetric process. In addition, the acute toxicity included healing time for the surgical wound, scaling of the skin, itching, necrosis, redness as well as seroma formation for 1 week and 1 month were recorded. The results were compared to those of 22 patients who underwent the surgery without IOERT.
Results: The highest skin dose for the patients was obtained 2.09 Gy, which is lower than the threshold dose (6 Gy). Furthermore, the findings showed that the average skin dose was higher in bigger applicator sizes and MU and lower tumor bed thicknesses. The average of wound healing for the patient underwent IOERT and without the use of IOERT (as the control group) was 19.32 and 11.67 days, respectively. One month after surgery, the volume of aspirated seroma was higher in the patients who performed IOERT compared to the control group (250 ml vs. 200 ml). It is notable that there were not observed any redness, itching, scaling, and necrosis in both investigated groups.
Conclusion: Owing to the results, the skin dose during IOERT was lower than the recommended level. The dose of IOERT as a full was higher than boost which can be related to the lower number of the patients in full method; however, there was a well-tolerated without severe acute complication, especially seroma formation and wound healing time in both full and boost methods. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_898_21 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2840244979</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A760029107</galeid><sourcerecordid>A760029107</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486i-5a9c01f9dc600ec94cc91804859244902993626603755de723b3569c488431613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks2PEyEYxidG43ZX754MiRcvU_maAbzVza6abOJFz4Qyb7u0UxiBsfav8F-W2e76lRoSSF5-z8MLPFX1guA5J5i92diY59OkpZKakkfVjCgla06YfFzNsBKsJlzSs-o8pQ3GjaBUPq3OmOACN1LNqh9XKbudyc6vUb4FlLbOoy4kQB5MRDncVc0w9M6aHCIyvkPGjhnK3ndnXT6golhGMCkja7yFiIbiBz6nt2jhy26OJgwQS_EbIOjB5hg8iqZzoZhHMxxQBnvr3dcRnlVPVqZP8Px-vai-XF99vvxQ33x6__FycVNbLltXN0ZZTFaqsy3GYBW3VhGJuWwU5VxhqhRradtiJpqmA0HZkjWtKmLJGWkJu6heH32HGMqxKeudSxb63ngIY9JUcjw5CVXQV_-gmzBGX7qbKEEFayT-Ta1ND9r5VSjXtpOpXojSJFUEi0LVJ6g1-PIMffCwcqX8Fz8_wZfRwc7ZkwJ8FNgYUoqw0kMs_xsPmmA9ZUbfxeWPzBTJy_v7jcsddL8EDyEpwLsjsA99hpi2_biHqAu79WH_X2PdNlg_xIv9BDXy1bM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2847273580</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Estimating the skin dose near to the applicator and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients: An intraoperative electron radiotherapy technique</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Mirkazemi, Maryam ; Mahdavi, Seyed ; Nafissi, Nahid ; Monfared, Ali ; Ghoreishi, Seyedeh ; Gorji, Kourosh</creator><creatorcontrib>Mirkazemi, Maryam ; Mahdavi, Seyed ; Nafissi, Nahid ; Monfared, Ali ; Ghoreishi, Seyedeh ; Gorji, Kourosh</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: Intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) is one of the most recently popular therapeutic methods for breast cancer. This study aimed to measure the skin dose near the applicator during IOERT of breast cancer patients, as well as, the incidence of acute toxicity after surgery.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six female patients participated in the current study with the prescribed dose of 21 and 12 Gy for IOERT as full and boost, respectively. The skin dose was investigated based on different applicator sizes, tumor bed thicknesses, and monitor units (MUs). The energy was chosen 8 MeV, and EBT3 film was used for the dosimetric process. In addition, the acute toxicity included healing time for the surgical wound, scaling of the skin, itching, necrosis, redness as well as seroma formation for 1 week and 1 month were recorded. The results were compared to those of 22 patients who underwent the surgery without IOERT.
Results: The highest skin dose for the patients was obtained 2.09 Gy, which is lower than the threshold dose (6 Gy). Furthermore, the findings showed that the average skin dose was higher in bigger applicator sizes and MU and lower tumor bed thicknesses. The average of wound healing for the patient underwent IOERT and without the use of IOERT (as the control group) was 19.32 and 11.67 days, respectively. One month after surgery, the volume of aspirated seroma was higher in the patients who performed IOERT compared to the control group (250 ml vs. 200 ml). It is notable that there were not observed any redness, itching, scaling, and necrosis in both investigated groups.
Conclusion: Owing to the results, the skin dose during IOERT was lower than the recommended level. The dose of IOERT as a full was higher than boost which can be related to the lower number of the patients in full method; however, there was a well-tolerated without severe acute complication, especially seroma formation and wound healing time in both full and boost methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0973-1482</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1998-4138</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_898_21</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37470589</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Care and treatment ; Complications and side effects ; Patient outcomes ; Radiotherapy ; Surgery ; Toxicity ; Wound healing</subject><ispartof>Journal of cancer research and therapeutics, 2023-07, Vol.19 (3), p.650-656</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486i-5a9c01f9dc600ec94cc91804859244902993626603755de723b3569c488431613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2847273580?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,25783,27957,27958,37047,37048,44625</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37470589$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mirkazemi, Maryam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahdavi, Seyed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nafissi, Nahid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monfared, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghoreishi, Seyedeh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorji, Kourosh</creatorcontrib><title>Estimating the skin dose near to the applicator and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients: An intraoperative electron radiotherapy technique</title><title>Journal of cancer research and therapeutics</title><addtitle>J Cancer Res Ther</addtitle><description>Introduction: Intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) is one of the most recently popular therapeutic methods for breast cancer. This study aimed to measure the skin dose near the applicator during IOERT of breast cancer patients, as well as, the incidence of acute toxicity after surgery.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six female patients participated in the current study with the prescribed dose of 21 and 12 Gy for IOERT as full and boost, respectively. The skin dose was investigated based on different applicator sizes, tumor bed thicknesses, and monitor units (MUs). The energy was chosen 8 MeV, and EBT3 film was used for the dosimetric process. In addition, the acute toxicity included healing time for the surgical wound, scaling of the skin, itching, necrosis, redness as well as seroma formation for 1 week and 1 month were recorded. The results were compared to those of 22 patients who underwent the surgery without IOERT.
Results: The highest skin dose for the patients was obtained 2.09 Gy, which is lower than the threshold dose (6 Gy). Furthermore, the findings showed that the average skin dose was higher in bigger applicator sizes and MU and lower tumor bed thicknesses. The average of wound healing for the patient underwent IOERT and without the use of IOERT (as the control group) was 19.32 and 11.67 days, respectively. One month after surgery, the volume of aspirated seroma was higher in the patients who performed IOERT compared to the control group (250 ml vs. 200 ml). It is notable that there were not observed any redness, itching, scaling, and necrosis in both investigated groups.
Conclusion: Owing to the results, the skin dose during IOERT was lower than the recommended level. The dose of IOERT as a full was higher than boost which can be related to the lower number of the patients in full method; however, there was a well-tolerated without severe acute complication, especially seroma formation and wound healing time in both full and boost methods.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Complications and side effects</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Wound healing</subject><issn>0973-1482</issn><issn>1998-4138</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks2PEyEYxidG43ZX754MiRcvU_maAbzVza6abOJFz4Qyb7u0UxiBsfav8F-W2e76lRoSSF5-z8MLPFX1guA5J5i92diY59OkpZKakkfVjCgla06YfFzNsBKsJlzSs-o8pQ3GjaBUPq3OmOACN1LNqh9XKbudyc6vUb4FlLbOoy4kQB5MRDncVc0w9M6aHCIyvkPGjhnK3ndnXT6golhGMCkja7yFiIbiBz6nt2jhy26OJgwQS_EbIOjB5hg8iqZzoZhHMxxQBnvr3dcRnlVPVqZP8Px-vai-XF99vvxQ33x6__FycVNbLltXN0ZZTFaqsy3GYBW3VhGJuWwU5VxhqhRradtiJpqmA0HZkjWtKmLJGWkJu6heH32HGMqxKeudSxb63ngIY9JUcjw5CVXQV_-gmzBGX7qbKEEFayT-Ta1ND9r5VSjXtpOpXojSJFUEi0LVJ6g1-PIMffCwcqX8Fz8_wZfRwc7ZkwJ8FNgYUoqw0kMs_xsPmmA9ZUbfxeWPzBTJy_v7jcsddL8EDyEpwLsjsA99hpi2_biHqAu79WH_X2PdNlg_xIv9BDXy1bM</recordid><startdate>20230701</startdate><enddate>20230701</enddate><creator>Mirkazemi, Maryam</creator><creator>Mahdavi, Seyed</creator><creator>Nafissi, Nahid</creator><creator>Monfared, Ali</creator><creator>Ghoreishi, Seyedeh</creator><creator>Gorji, Kourosh</creator><general>Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230701</creationdate><title>Estimating the skin dose near to the applicator and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients: An intraoperative electron radiotherapy technique</title><author>Mirkazemi, Maryam ; Mahdavi, Seyed ; Nafissi, Nahid ; Monfared, Ali ; Ghoreishi, Seyedeh ; Gorji, Kourosh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486i-5a9c01f9dc600ec94cc91804859244902993626603755de723b3569c488431613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Complications and side effects</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Wound healing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mirkazemi, Maryam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahdavi, Seyed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nafissi, Nahid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monfared, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghoreishi, Seyedeh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorji, Kourosh</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of cancer research and therapeutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mirkazemi, Maryam</au><au>Mahdavi, Seyed</au><au>Nafissi, Nahid</au><au>Monfared, Ali</au><au>Ghoreishi, Seyedeh</au><au>Gorji, Kourosh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Estimating the skin dose near to the applicator and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients: An intraoperative electron radiotherapy technique</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cancer research and therapeutics</jtitle><addtitle>J Cancer Res Ther</addtitle><date>2023-07-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>650</spage><epage>656</epage><pages>650-656</pages><issn>0973-1482</issn><eissn>1998-4138</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>Introduction: Intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) is one of the most recently popular therapeutic methods for breast cancer. This study aimed to measure the skin dose near the applicator during IOERT of breast cancer patients, as well as, the incidence of acute toxicity after surgery.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six female patients participated in the current study with the prescribed dose of 21 and 12 Gy for IOERT as full and boost, respectively. The skin dose was investigated based on different applicator sizes, tumor bed thicknesses, and monitor units (MUs). The energy was chosen 8 MeV, and EBT3 film was used for the dosimetric process. In addition, the acute toxicity included healing time for the surgical wound, scaling of the skin, itching, necrosis, redness as well as seroma formation for 1 week and 1 month were recorded. The results were compared to those of 22 patients who underwent the surgery without IOERT.
Results: The highest skin dose for the patients was obtained 2.09 Gy, which is lower than the threshold dose (6 Gy). Furthermore, the findings showed that the average skin dose was higher in bigger applicator sizes and MU and lower tumor bed thicknesses. The average of wound healing for the patient underwent IOERT and without the use of IOERT (as the control group) was 19.32 and 11.67 days, respectively. One month after surgery, the volume of aspirated seroma was higher in the patients who performed IOERT compared to the control group (250 ml vs. 200 ml). It is notable that there were not observed any redness, itching, scaling, and necrosis in both investigated groups.
Conclusion: Owing to the results, the skin dose during IOERT was lower than the recommended level. The dose of IOERT as a full was higher than boost which can be related to the lower number of the patients in full method; however, there was a well-tolerated without severe acute complication, especially seroma formation and wound healing time in both full and boost methods.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>37470589</pmid><doi>10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_898_21</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0973-1482 |
| ispartof | Journal of cancer research and therapeutics, 2023-07, Vol.19 (3), p.650-656 |
| issn | 0973-1482 1998-4138 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2840244979 |
| source | Publicly Available Content Database |
| subjects | Breast cancer Care and treatment Complications and side effects Patient outcomes Radiotherapy Surgery Toxicity Wound healing |
| title | Estimating the skin dose near to the applicator and acute toxicity in breast cancer patients: An intraoperative electron radiotherapy technique |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-22T21%3A15%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Estimating%20the%20skin%20dose%20near%20to%20the%20applicator%20and%20acute%20toxicity%20in%20breast%20cancer%20patients:%20An%20intraoperative%20electron%20radiotherapy%20technique&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cancer%20research%20and%20therapeutics&rft.au=Mirkazemi,%20Maryam&rft.date=2023-07-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=650&rft.epage=656&rft.pages=650-656&rft.issn=0973-1482&rft.eissn=1998-4138&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_898_21&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA760029107%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486i-5a9c01f9dc600ec94cc91804859244902993626603755de723b3569c488431613%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2847273580&rft_id=info:pmid/37470589&rft_galeid=A760029107&rfr_iscdi=true |