ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of robustness in hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans generated by commercial software for automated breast planning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated fluence optimization in breast cancer radiotherapy: balancing dosimetric quality, organ-at-risk sparing, and workflow efficiency.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Review
- Role of main RNA modifications in cancer: NSignal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the robustness against geometric uncertainties in the hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans generated by commercially available software for automated breast planning (ABP). The ABP plans were compared with commonly used forward-planned field-in-field (FIF) technique plans. The planning computed tomography datasets of 20 patients who received left-sided breast-conserving surgery were used for both the ABP and FIF plans. Geometric uncertainties were simulated by shifting beam isocenters by 2, 3, 5, and 10 mm in the six directions: anterior/posterior, left/right, and superior/inferior. A total of 500 plans (20 patients and 25 scenarios, including the original plan) were created for each of the ABP and FIF plans. The homogeneity index of the target volume in the ABP plans was significantly better (p < 0.001) than the value in the FIF plans in the scenarios of shifting beam isocenters by 2, 3, and 5 mm. Mean heart dose and percentage volume of lungs receiving a dose more than 20 Gy were clinically acceptable in all scenarios. The hybrid IMRT plans generated by commercially available ABP software provided better robustness against geometric uncertainties than forward-planned FIF plans.
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.