Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer
After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
De Santis, Maria C [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
|---|
| Systematik: |
|
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: The British journal of radiology - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928, 89(2016), 1066 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:89 ; year:2016 ; number:1066 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC1981413421 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC1981413421 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230509072504.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 161013s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1259/bjr.20160264 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20161012 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC1981413421 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q DNB |
| 084 | |a XA 34700 |q AVZ |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |a 44.64 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 44.40 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a De Santis, Maria C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Nardone, Luigia |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Diletto, Barbara |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Canna, Roberta |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dispinzieri, Michela |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Marino, Lorenza |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lozza, Laura |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Valentini, Vincenzo |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The British journal of radiology |d Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928 |g 89(2016), 1066 |w (DE-627)129077976 |w (DE-600)2982-8 |w (DE-576)014410524 |x 0007-1285 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:89 |g year:2016 |g number:1066 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHY | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-DE-84 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4219 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 936 | r | v | |a XA 34700 |
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.64 |q AVZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.40 |q AVZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 89 |j 2016 |e 1066 | ||
| author_variant |
s m c d smc smcd |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:00071285:2016----::oprsnfwrdainehiusoteratosiptetudronnodu |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
| bklnumber |
44.64 44.40 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 doi PQ20161012 (DE-627)OLC1981413421 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl De Santis, Maria C verfasserin aut Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Nardone, Luigia oth Diletto, Barbara oth Canna, Roberta oth Dispinzieri, Michela oth Marino, Lorenza oth Lozza, Laura oth Valentini, Vincenzo oth Enthalten in The British journal of radiology Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928 89(2016), 1066 (DE-627)129077976 (DE-600)2982-8 (DE-576)014410524 0007-1285 nnns volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 GBV_ILN_4305 XA 34700 44.64 AVZ 44.40 AVZ AR 89 2016 1066 |
| spelling |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 doi PQ20161012 (DE-627)OLC1981413421 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl De Santis, Maria C verfasserin aut Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Nardone, Luigia oth Diletto, Barbara oth Canna, Roberta oth Dispinzieri, Michela oth Marino, Lorenza oth Lozza, Laura oth Valentini, Vincenzo oth Enthalten in The British journal of radiology Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928 89(2016), 1066 (DE-627)129077976 (DE-600)2982-8 (DE-576)014410524 0007-1285 nnns volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 GBV_ILN_4305 XA 34700 44.64 AVZ 44.40 AVZ AR 89 2016 1066 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 doi PQ20161012 (DE-627)OLC1981413421 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl De Santis, Maria C verfasserin aut Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Nardone, Luigia oth Diletto, Barbara oth Canna, Roberta oth Dispinzieri, Michela oth Marino, Lorenza oth Lozza, Laura oth Valentini, Vincenzo oth Enthalten in The British journal of radiology Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928 89(2016), 1066 (DE-627)129077976 (DE-600)2982-8 (DE-576)014410524 0007-1285 nnns volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 GBV_ILN_4305 XA 34700 44.64 AVZ 44.40 AVZ AR 89 2016 1066 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 doi PQ20161012 (DE-627)OLC1981413421 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl De Santis, Maria C verfasserin aut Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Nardone, Luigia oth Diletto, Barbara oth Canna, Roberta oth Dispinzieri, Michela oth Marino, Lorenza oth Lozza, Laura oth Valentini, Vincenzo oth Enthalten in The British journal of radiology Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928 89(2016), 1066 (DE-627)129077976 (DE-600)2982-8 (DE-576)014410524 0007-1285 nnns volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 GBV_ILN_4305 XA 34700 44.64 AVZ 44.40 AVZ AR 89 2016 1066 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 doi PQ20161012 (DE-627)OLC1981413421 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl De Santis, Maria C verfasserin aut Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Nardone, Luigia oth Diletto, Barbara oth Canna, Roberta oth Dispinzieri, Michela oth Marino, Lorenza oth Lozza, Laura oth Valentini, Vincenzo oth Enthalten in The British journal of radiology Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928 89(2016), 1066 (DE-627)129077976 (DE-600)2982-8 (DE-576)014410524 0007-1285 nnns volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 GBV_ILN_4305 XA 34700 44.64 AVZ 44.40 AVZ AR 89 2016 1066 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in The British journal of radiology 89(2016), 1066 volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in The British journal of radiology 89(2016), 1066 volume:89 year:2016 number:1066 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
The British journal of radiology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
De Santis, Maria C @@aut@@ Nardone, Luigia @@oth@@ Diletto, Barbara @@oth@@ Canna, Roberta @@oth@@ Dispinzieri, Michela @@oth@@ Marino, Lorenza @@oth@@ Lozza, Laura @@oth@@ Valentini, Vincenzo @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
129077976 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
OLC1981413421 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1981413421</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230509072504.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">161013s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1259/bjr.20160264</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20161012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1981413421</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">XA 34700</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.64</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">De Santis, Maria C</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nardone, Luigia</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Diletto, Barbara</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Canna, Roberta</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dispinzieri, Michela</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marino, Lorenza</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lozza, Laura</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Valentini, Vincenzo</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The British journal of radiology</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928</subfield><subfield code="g">89(2016), 1066</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129077976</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2982-8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014410524</subfield><subfield code="x">0007-1285</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:89</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1066</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">XA 34700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.64</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">89</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1066</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
De Santis, Maria C |
| spellingShingle |
De Santis, Maria C ddc 610 rvk XA 34700 bkl 44.64 bkl 44.40 Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| authorStr |
De Santis, Maria C |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129077976 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0007-1285 |
| topic_title |
610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| topic |
ddc 610 rvk XA 34700 bkl 44.64 bkl 44.40 |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 rvk XA 34700 bkl 44.64 bkl 44.40 |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 rvk XA 34700 bkl 44.64 bkl 44.40 |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| author2_variant |
l n ln b d bd r c rc m d md l m lm l l ll v v vv |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The British journal of radiology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
129077976 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The British journal of radiology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129077976 (DE-600)2982-8 (DE-576)014410524 |
| title |
Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC1981413421 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421 (PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650 (KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos |
| title_full |
Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| author_sort |
De Santis, Maria C |
| journal |
The British journal of radiology |
| journalStr |
The British journal of radiology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
De Santis, Maria C |
| container_volume |
89 |
| class |
610 DNB XA 34700 AVZ rvk 44.64 bkl 44.40 bkl |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
De Santis, Maria C |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| title_sort |
comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| title_auth |
Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| abstract |
After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. |
| abstractGer |
After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 GBV_ILN_4305 |
| container_issue |
1066 |
| title_short |
Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Nardone, Luigia Diletto, Barbara Canna, Roberta Dispinzieri, Michela Marino, Lorenza Lozza, Laura Valentini, Vincenzo |
| author2Str |
Nardone, Luigia Diletto, Barbara Canna, Roberta Dispinzieri, Michela Marino, Lorenza Lozza, Laura Valentini, Vincenzo |
| ppnlink |
129077976 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1259/bjr.20160264 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T04:54:18.680Z |
| _version_ |
1803622923558191104 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1981413421</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230509072504.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">161013s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1259/bjr.20160264</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20161012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1981413421</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1981413421</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)c605-df107d77cbd051b5fecc2f478c64964c861e6b0f4365a2a851be56caea22ad650</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0026188220160000089106600000comparisonoftworadiationtechniquesforthebreastboos</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">XA 34700</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.64</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">De Santis, Maria C</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of two radiation techniques for the breast boost in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">After breast conservative surgery (BCS) and whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT), the use of boost irradiation is recommended especially in patients at high risk. However, the standard technique and the definition of the boost volume have not been well defined. We retrospectively compared an anticipated pre-operative photon boost on the tumour, administered with low-dose fractionated radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two different sequential boost techniques, administered after BCS and standard adjuvant WBRT: (1) a standard photon beam (2) and an electron beam technique on the tumour bed of the same patients. The plans were analyzed for the dosimetric coverage of the CT-delineated irradiated volume. The minimal dose received by 95% of the target volume (D95), the minimal dose received by 90% of the target volume (D90) and geographic misses were evaluated. 15 patients were evaluated. The sequential photon and electron boost techniques resulted in inferior target volume coverage compared with the anticipated boost technique, with a median D95 of 96.3% (range 94.7-99.6%) and 0.8% (range 0-30%) and a median D90 of 99.1% (range 90.2-100%) and 54.7% (range 0-84.8%), respectively. We observed a geographic miss in 26.6% of sequential electron plans. The results of the anticipated boost technique were better: 99.4% (range 96.5-100%) and 97.1% (range 86.2-99%) for median D90 and median D95, respectively, and no geographic miss was observed. We observed a dose reduction to the heart, with left-sided breast irradiation, using the anticipated pre-operative boost technique, when analyzed for all dose-volume parameters. When compared with the sequential electron plans, the pre-operative photon technique showed a higher median ipsilateral lung Dmax. Our data show that an anticipated pre-operative photon boost results in a better coverage with respect to the standard sequential boost while also saving the organs at risk and consequently fewer side effects. This is the first dosimetric study that evaluated the association between an anticipated boost and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nardone, Luigia</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Diletto, Barbara</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Canna, Roberta</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dispinzieri, Michela</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marino, Lorenza</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lozza, Laura</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Valentini, Vincenzo</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The British journal of radiology</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1928</subfield><subfield code="g">89(2016), 1066</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129077976</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2982-8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014410524</subfield><subfield code="x">0007-1285</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:89</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1066</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160264</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27452265</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">XA 34700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.64</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">89</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1066</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.403097 |