ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of amalgam dental filling on radiotherapy of head and neck cancer: In vivo dosimetry and dose calculation using AAA and Acuros algorithms.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Recommendations for using analytical anisotropic algorithm and AcurosXB for epidermal dose calculations in breast radiotherapy from an in vivo Gafchromic film study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Ethos intelligent optimization engine for left locally advanced breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of Prepectoral vs. Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement on Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of acuros XB algorithm in deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) respiratory techniques used for the treatment of left breast cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
- Dosimetric Influence of Acuros XB Dose-to-Medium and Dose-to-Water Reporting Modes on Carcinoma Cervix Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric RapidArc Technique.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTwo dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse-based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation.
methodsLocoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMC
resultsThere were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breast
conclusionWe observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.
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.