ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Dosimetric effects of the kV based image-guided radiation therapy of prone breast external beam radiation: Towards the optimized imaging frequency.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of CBCT-guided imaging schedules for left-sided postmastectomy radiotherapy using VMAT: A dosimetric, radiobiological, and cost analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond-shaped light fields for prone breast external-beam radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- A study of the dosimetric impact of daily setup variations measured with cone-beam CT on three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer delivered in the prone position.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Setup uncertainties and the optimal imaging schedule in the prone position whole breast radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor prone breast treatment, daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) allows couch shifting to correct breast position relative to the treatment field. This work investigates the dosimetric effect of reducing kV imaging frequencies and the feasibility of optimizing the frequency using patient anatomy or their first 3-day shifts.
methodThirty-seven prone breast patients who had been treated with skin marker alignment followed by daily kV were retrospectively analyzed. Three IGRT schemes (daily-kV, weekly-kV, no-kV) were simulated, assuming that fractions with kV imaging deliver a dose distribution equivalent to that in computed tomography (CT) planning, whereas other fractions yield a dose distribution as recreated by shifting the CT plan isocenter back to its position before the couch shift was applied. Treatment dose to targets (breast and lumpectomy cavity [LPC]) and organs at risks (OAR)s (heart, ipsilateral lung) in different schemes were calculated. Patient anatomy information on CT plans and first 3-day couch shift data were analyzed to investigate whether these factors could guide imaging scheme optimization.
resultsWhen kV imaging frequency was reduced, the percentage dose changes (δD) for breast and LPC objectives (average <1%) were smaller than those for heart and lung (average 28%-31% for D
conclusionsDespite resulting in lower imaging dose, time, cost, and similar target coverage, a reduction in kV imaging frequency may introduce higher heart complication risk. Daily kVs are needed more in left-sided breast patients. A less frequent imaging schedule, if considered, cannot be individually optimized using CT anatomic features or early shift data.
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.