Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37576097›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical physics

Dosimetric Comparison of Different Dose Calculation Algorithms in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients Using Conformal Planning Techniques.

Garima Gaur, Vinod Kumar Dangwal, Raja Paramjeet Singh Banipal, Ranjit Singh, Gurpreet Kaur, Romikant Grover, Sheetal Sachdeva, Manraj Singh Kang, Simrandeep Singh, Pardeep Garg and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Garima GaurDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Vinod Kumar DangwalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India.
Raja Paramjeet Singh BanipalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India.
Ranjit Singh#3246, Sector 24D, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.
Gurpreet KaurDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Romikant GroverDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Sheetal SachdevaAdvance Cancer Centre, Bathinda, Punjab, India.
Manraj Singh KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Simrandeep SinghDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Pardeep GargDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Baltej SinghDepartment of Community Medicine, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India.
Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital · INGovernment Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The aim of the current study was to compare three different dose-calculating algorithms, i.e., superposition (SP), fast SP (FSP), and convolution (CV), for breast cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and field-in-Field forward plan IMRT (FiF-FP-IMRT). Materials and Methods: The current retrospective study involved 100 postmastectomy breast cancer patients who were given radiotherapy using IMRT and FiF-FP-IMRT planning techniques. All the initially SP-calculated plans were recalculated with the same monitor units for FSP and CV algorithm without change in any of the other planning parameters. The isodose distribution and various plan evaluating parameters, for example, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, and uniformity index target volume and normal structure doses were compared and analyzed for all the different algorithm calculated plans. Results: In the IMRT plans, all the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters showed a significant difference between all the three different algorithms with Conclusion: The change in the dose calculation algorithm resulted in dosimetric changes which must be evaluated by the medical physicists and oncologists while evaluating treatment plans. In the current study with breast patients, the results obtained for target and normal structure doses using the CV algorithm are overestimated as compared to SP and FSP algorithms, producing variable results in air and bony normal structures. However, the ipsilateral lung V

Indexed as

Breast cancerdose calculating algorithmsfield-in-field forward plan intensity-modulated radiotherapyintensity-modulated radiotherapyradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37576097
PMCPMC10419741
OpenAlexW4385798645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.