Talk:Brachytherapy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Brachytherapy.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brachytherapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
| Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
| WikiProject Medicine | (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 | Brachytherapy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||
| ||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 31-12-2016 by Example.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Non-invasive breast brachytherapy (NIBB)[edit]
 | A requested edit by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The references suggested for use all originate from a single collective and lack variegation of source. Thus, the WP:MEDRS requirements for the provision of secondary and tertiary sources are unmet. |
Non-Invasive Breast Brachytherapy (NIBB) is a non-invasive approach (no catheters or needles) that combines real-time mammographic image-guidance with breast immobilization to allow the radiation oncologist to identify and treat the target tissue. Tungsten shielded applicators are connected to an HDR afterloader and radiation is delivered parallel to chest wall using what is referred to as a “4-field box” technique. Studies indicate this combination of features provide for a substantial reduction in radiation dose to the skin, chestwall, heart and lungs.[1][2]
Conformal radiation fields together with breast immobilization and mammographic imaging allow for notable reductions to the PTV.[3][4] Currently, NIBB is being used for the delivery of either APBI or the “Boost” portion of Whole Breast Irradiation (WBI).
Ekimyenoom (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Ekimyenoom (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hepel, Jaroslaw T.; Wazer, David E. (May 2012). "A comparison of brachytherapy techniques for partial breast irradiation". Brachytherapy. 11 (3): 163–175. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2011.06.001. ISSN 1538-4721.
- ^ Wazer, David E; Arthur, Douglas W; Vicini, Frank A (2009). "Emerging Technologies: Noninvasive image guided breast brachytherapy". Accelerated partial breast irradiation techniques and clinical implementation. Springer. ISBN 9783540880066.
- ^ Shah, Chirag; Vicini, Frank; Shaitelman, Simona F.; Hepel, Jaroslaw; Keisch, Martin; Arthur, Douglas; Khan, Atif J.; Kuske, Robert; Patel, Rakesh; Wazer, David E. (January 2018). "The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation". Brachytherapy. 17 (1): 154–170. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2017.09.004. ISSN 1538-4721.
- ^ Hepel, Jaroslaw T. (2016). "Noninvasive Image-Guided Breast Brachytherapy (NIBB)". Short Course Breast Radiotherapy. Springer, Cham. pp. 387–402. ISBN 9783319243863.
I'll defer to @Jytdog:'s judgment on this, if he's willing to have a look at it. spintendo 16:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ive added DOI's to the documents, and in doing so, I found it curious that they are all written largely with the key input of one person - Dr. Hepel. Are there no other groups studying this treatment? If that were the case, I would think that requiring other voices beyond Dr. Hepel's would be in the spirit of WP:MEDRS. As the references suggested for use here all originate from a single collective and lack variegation of source, the WP:MEDRS requirements for the provision of secondary and tertiary sources are unmet. spintendo 01:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- The guidance from @Jytdog: and @Spintendo: have previously provided were well stated and pivotal in formulating a description and references that comply with Wikipedia requirements. The most recent comments from spintendo, however, are difficult to resolve/agree with. The third reference(Shah et al), for instance, is a consensus statement written by the KOLS within radiation therapy in general and breast radiation therapy in particular. It is difficult to conceive of a more unbiased secondary or tertiary source as the nature of a consensus statement requires that the authors agree on the content. The author list is a literal “who’s who” within the industry, varied in geography, background, clinical approach and clinical preferences. The second reference ( Wazer et al) is a review book written by three of the top minds in breast radiation therapy, from 3 vastly different academic centers. The additional reference Hepel as well as Hepel et al, were added for completeness and can be removed if it is felt that their inclusion creates the appearance of bias. Ekimyenoom (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Following up on the response from @Spintendo: and the additional resources we provided. Can you provide additional guidance or approval of the updated sources? Ekimyenoom (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
