↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 tweeters
peer_reviews
2 peer review sites
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007077.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigid E Hickey, Margot Lehman, Daniel P Francis, Adrienne M See

Abstract

Breast-conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiotherapy (RT). RT is given to sterilize tumour cells that may remain after surgery to decrease the risk of local tumour recurrence. Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane review, we investigated the delivery of radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation (PBI)) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)). To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypo-fractionated WBRT after breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialized Register (4 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 4 May 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 4 May 2015), CINAHL (4 May 2015) and Current Contents (4 May 2015). We searched the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (5 May 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (4 May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (17 June 2015). We searched for grey literature: OpenGrey (17 June 2015), reference lists of articles, several conference proceedings and published abstracts, and applied no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding, that evaluated conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus WBRT. Published and unpublished trials were eligible. Two review authors (BH and ML) performed data extraction and used Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool, and resolved any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager 5 for analysis. We included seven RCTs and studied 7586 women of the 8955 enrolled.Local recurrence-free survival appeared worse for women receiving PBI/APBI compared to WBRT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.35; six studies, 6820 participants, low-quality evidence). Cosmesis (physician-reported) appeared worse with PBI/APBI (odds ratio (OR) 1.51, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.95, five studies, 1720 participants, low-quality evidence). Overall survival did not differ with PBI/APBI (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09, five studies, 6718 participants, high-quality evidence).Late radiation toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis) appeared worse with PBI/APBI (OR 6.58, 95% CI 3.08 to 14.06, one study, 766 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Acute skin toxicity appeared reduced with PBI/APBI (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09, two studies, 608 participants). Telangiectasia (OR 26.56, 95% CI 3.59 to 196.51, 1 study, 766 participants) and radiological fat necrosis (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43, three studies, 1319 participants) appeared worse with PBI/APBI. Late skin toxicity (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.39, two studies, 608 participants) and breast pain (OR 2.17, 95% CI 0.56 to 8.44, one study, 766 participants) appeared not to differ with PBI/APBI.'Elsewhere primaries' (new primaries in the ipsilateral breast) appeared more frequent with PBI/APBI (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.51 to 10.41, three studies, 3009 participants).We found no clear evidence of a difference for the comparison of PBI/APBI with WBRT for the outcomes of: cause-specific survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.58, five studies, 6718 participants, moderate-quality evidence), distant metastasis-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37, four studies, 3267 participants, moderate-quality evidence), relapse-free survival (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.09, three studies, 3811 participants), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.25, two studies, 3553 participants) or mastectomy rates (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87, three studies, 4817 participants, low-quality evidence). Compliance was met: more than 90% of the women in all studies received the RT they were assigned to receive. We found no data for the outcomes of costs, quality of life or consumer preference. It appeared that local recurrence and 'elsewhere primaries' (new primaries in the ipsilateral breast) are increased with PBI/APBI (the difference was small), but we found no evidence of detriment to other oncological outcomes. It appeared that cosmetic outcomes and some late effects were worse with PBI/APBI but its use was associated with less acute skin toxicity. The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver of PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 197 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 46 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Psychology 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 56 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,012,057
of 17,566,999 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,637
of 11,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,978
of 270,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,566,999 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 270,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.