ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Evaluation of Auto-Planning for Left-Side Breast Cancer After Breast-Conserving Surgery Based on Geometrical Relationship.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of automated personalised breast radiotherapy planning techniques with scripting in Raystation.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate (1) the performance of the Auto-Planning module embedded in the Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) with 30 left-side breast cancer plans and (2) the dose-distance correlations between dose-based patients and overlap volume histogram-based (OVH) patients.
methodA total of 30 patients with left-side breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery were enrolled in this study. The clinical manual-planning (MP) and the Auto-Planning (AP) plans were generated by Monaco and by the Auto-Planning module in Pinnacle respectively. The geometric information between organ at risk (OAR) and planning target volume (PTV) of each patient was described by the OVH. The AP and MP plans were ranked to compare with the geometry-based patients from OVH. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (R) was used to describe the correlations between dose-based patients (APs and MPs) and geometry-based patients (OVH). Dosimetric differences between MP and AP plans were evaluated with statistical analysis.
resultThe correlation coefficient (mean R = 0.71) indicated that the AP plans have a high correlation with geometry-based patients from OVH, whereas the correlation coefficient (mean R = 0.48) shows a weak correlation between MP plans and geometry-based patients. The dosimetric comparison revealed a statistically significant improvement in the ipsilateral lung V
conclusionThe overall results of AP plans were superior to MP plans. The dose distribution in AP plans was more consistent with the distance-dose relationship described by OVH. After eliminating the interference of human factors, the AP was able to provide more stable and objective plans for radiotherapy patients.
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.