A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A randomized control trial evaluating fluorescent ink versus dark ink tattoos for breast radiotherapy. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • This UK study aimed to assess the accuracy and body image impact of ultraviolet (UV) tattoos versus conventional dark ink tattoos during breast/chest wall radiotherapy.
  • In a randomized trial with 46 patients, results showed that UV tattoos had an accuracy level comparable to dark ink tattoos, with random errors below the desired threshold.
  • Additionally, a higher percentage of patients with UV tattoos reported improvements in body image at 1 and 6 months after treatment, suggesting a psychological benefit from this tattoo type.

Article Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this UK study was to evaluate interfraction reproducibility and body image score when using ultraviolet (UV) tattoos (not visible in ambient lighting) for external references during breast/chest wall radiotherapy and compare with conventional dark ink.

Methods: In this non-blinded, single-centre, parallel group, randomized control trial, patients were allocated to receive either conventional dark ink or UV ink tattoos using computer-generated random blocks. Participant assignment was not masked. Systematic (∑) and random (σ) setup errors were determined using electronic portal images. Body image questionnaires were completed at pre-treatment, 1 month and 6 months to determine the impact of tattoo type on body image. The primary end point was to determine that UV tattoo random error (σ) was no less accurate than with conventional dark ink tattoos, i.e. <2.8 mm.

Results: 46 patients were randomized to receive conventional dark or UV ink tattoos. 45 patients completed treatment (UV: n = 23, dark: n = 22). σ for the UV tattoo group was <2.8 mm in the u and v directions (p = 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively). A larger proportion of patients reported improvement in body image score in the UV tattoo group compared with the dark ink group at 1 month [56% (13/23) vs 14% (3/22), respectively] and 6 months [52% (11/21) vs 38% (8/21), respectively].

Conclusion: UV tattoos were associated with interfraction setup reproducibility comparable with conventional dark ink. Patients reported a more favourable change in body image score up to 6 months following treatment. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to evaluate UV tattoo external references in a randomized control trial.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604906PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160288DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dark ink
12
ink tattoos
12
body image
12
conventional dark
12
randomized control
8
control trial
8
ink
5
trial evaluating
4
evaluating fluorescent
4
fluorescent ink
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!