Cosmetic assessment in brachytherapy (interventional radiotherapy) for breast cancer: A multidisciplinary review.
Clicks: 405
ID: 62140
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
405 views
52 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #2 of 31 articles by views in brachytherapy
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This review was to focus on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods state of the art and to define the advantages and disadvantages related to.We conducted a literature review of the major experience on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods in several databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases). To identify the relevant works, a task force screened citations at title and abstract level to identify potentially relevant paper. An expert board reviewed and approved the text. The assessment systems were classified into three main groups: (1) the Oncological Toxicity Scales, (2) the Independent Patients Perspective Measures, (3) the Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Each cosmetic assessment method was evaluated following six parameters: (1) anatomical site, (2) advantages, (3) disadvantages, (4) subjective/objective, (5) quantitative/qualitative, (6) computers or pictures needs.Eleven assessment methods were selected. Three methods were classified as Oncological Toxicity Scale, six in the Independent Patients Perspective Measures classification, and two as Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Six methods are subjective, while eight are objective. Four systems are classified as quantitative, four as qualitative while three both. Five systems need informatics support. Moreover, each method was discussed individually reporting the main characteristics and peculiarities.Cosmesis is one major end point for the patient who has a malignancy of low lethal potential. In modern personalized medicine, there is a need for standardized cosmetic outcome assessments to analyze and compare the results of treatments. No gold standard methods currently exist. The result of this review is to summarize the various cosmesis methods, defining the strengths and weaknesses of each one and giving a line in research and clinical practice.
| Reference Key |
tagliaferricosmeticbrachytherapy
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Tagliaferri, Luca;Lancellotta, Valentina;Zinicola, Tiziano;Gentileschi, Stefano;Sollena, Pietro;Garganese, Giorgia;Guinot, José L;Rembielak, Agata;Soror, Tamer;Autorino, Rosa;Cammelli, Silvia;Gambacorta, Maria A;Aristei, Cynthia;Valentini, Vincenzo;Kovacs, György; |
| Journal | brachytherapy |
| Year | Year not found |
| DOI |
S1538-4721(18)30765-7
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.