ReviewJournal of medical physics
Planning System-dependent Recommendations of Intensity-modulated Technique for Breast Radiotherapy: A Literature Review-based Adaptation and Institutional Dosimetric Experience from a Large-volume Tertiary Cancer Care Hospital.
Review 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical feasibility of Ethos auto-segmentation for adaptive whole-breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Long-term Outcome After Helical Tomotherapy Following Breast Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article aims to identify, through a literature review, the best intensity-modulated technique (IMRT)/volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the breast/chest wall (Br/CW) as a function of the treatment planning system (TPS) and present the institutional dosimetric data for the same. A PubMed search was conducted following intensity-modulated irradiation techniques (IMRT) presented in the study: field-in-field (FiF), tangential IMRT (t-IMRT), multi-field IMRT, tangential VMAT (t-VMAT), half-arc VMAT (HA-VMAT), and large arc VMAT (LA-VMAT). The literature with at least one arm VMAT is included in this study. A total of 370 articles were identified between 2010 and 2022, out of which 19 articles were found to be unique. These articles were classified in terms of the TPS used: Eclipse (9), Monaco (6), RayStation (2), Pinnacle (1), and one unidentified TPS. Based on the literature review, dosimetric attributes, and second cancer risk analysis (SCRA), t-IMRT was found to be the most preferable technique in Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation TPS. However, for Monaco TPS, t-VMAT (approximately 30° tangential arc) offers better dose coverage with lower organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. In terms of OAR doses and SCRA, LA-VMAT (≥210°) and HA-VMAT (180°) are avoidable techniques in any TPS, and FiF should be preferred over these two techniques. In our present institution, which uses the Eclipse TPS, data for 300 patients treated with t-IMRT were collected. The data included beam angle, monitor unit [MU], target coverage (D95% and V105% [cc]), and analysis of the maximum (%), and mean dose (%) of the OAR. t-IMRT utilizes two medial and three lateral tangential beams placed at a spread of approximately 10° and 20°, respectively. The results showed a D95% of 96.3 ± 1.2% and a V105% of 4.9 ± 7.0 cc. The mean doses to the heart and ipsilateral lung were 10.1 ± 20.9% and 11.4 ± 10.2%, respectively. The mean MU was 1282.7 ± 453.4. Based on the findings, the most preferred intensity-modulated technique for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation is t-IMRT, while for Monaco, it is t-VMAT. The data from the Eclipse planning system demonstrate a satisfactory dosimetric outcome for t-IMRT. However, the use of VMAT techniques employing an arc angle between 180° and 210° or higher is strongly discouraged.
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.