ArticleJournal of radiation research2014
Determination of the optimal method for the field-in-field technique in breast tangential radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of target coverage priority levels on dose homogeneity in commercial automated field-in-field planning for breast radiotherapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Reproducibility and stability of voluntary deep inspiration breath hold and free breath in breast radiotherapy based on real-time 3-dimensional optical surface imaging system.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Efficient method for whole-breast irradiation therapy using Halcyon linear accelerators.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Dosimetric comparison of left sided whole breast irradiation with Tangential wedge beam, electron boosted Tangential wedged beam and asymmetric technique.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Impact of Positioning Errors on the Dosimetry of Breath-Hold-Based Volumetric Arc Modulated and Tangential Field-in-Field Left-Sided Breast Treatments.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- Automatic Planning of Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Using Machine Learning Models.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Article
- A topology-based method to mitigate the dosimetric uncertainty caused by the positional variation of the boost volume in breast conservative radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Article
- High Tangent Radiation Therapy With Field-in-Field Technique for Breast Cancer.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the field-in-field technique with lung blocks for breast tangential radiotherapy.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2015Article
- Dosimetric Comparison of Irregular Surface Compensator and Field-in-Field for Whole Breast Radiotherapy.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies have reported the usefulness of the field-in-field (FIF) technique in breast radiotherapy. However, the methods for the FIF technique used in these studies vary. These methods were classified into three categories. We simulated a radiotherapy plan with each method and analyzed the outcomes. In the first method, a pair of subfields was added to each main field: the single pair of subfields method (SSM). In the second method, three pairs of subfields were added to each main field: the multiple pairs of subfields method (MSM). In the third method, subfields were alternately added: the alternate subfields method (ASM). A total of 51 patients were enrolled in this study. The maximum dose to the planning target volume (PTV) (Dmax) and the volumes of the PTV receiving 100% of the prescription dose (V100%) were calculated. The thickness of the breast between the chest wall and skin surface was measured, and patients were divided into two groups according to the median. In the overall series, the average V100% with ASM (60.3%) was significantly higher than with SSM (52.6%) and MSM (48.7%). In the thin breast group as well, the average V100% with ASM (57.3%) and SSM (54.2%) was significantly higher than that with MSM (43.3%). In the thick breast group, the average V100% with ASM (63.4%) was significantly higher than that with SSM (51.0%) and MSM (54.4%). ASM resulted in better dose distribution, regardless of the breast size. Moreover, planning for ASM required a relatively short time. ASM was considered the most preferred method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.