ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
Evaluation of robustness of optimization methods in breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy using TomoTherapy.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a popular choice for breast cancer treatment. We aimed to evaluate and compare the robustness of each optimization method used for breast IMRT using TomoTherapy. A retrospective analysis was performed on 10 patients with left breast cancer. For each optimization method (clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash), a corresponding 50 Gy/25 fr plan was created in the helical and direct TomoTherapy modes. The dose-volume histogram parameters were compared after shifting the patients anteriorly and posteriorly. In the helical mode, when the patient was not shifted, the median D1cc (minimum dose delivered to 1 cc of the organ volume) of the breast skin for the clipping and virtual bolus plans was 52.2 (interquartile range: 51.9-52.6) and 50.4 (50.1-50.8) Gy, respectively. After an anterior shift, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping and virtual bolus plans was 56.0 (55.6-56.8) and 50.9 (50.5-51.3) Gy, respectively. When the direct mode was used without shifting the patient, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash plans was 52.6 (51.9-53.1), 53.4 (52.6-53.9), and 52.3 (51.7-53.0) Gy, respectively. After shifting anteriorly, D1cc of the breast skin for the clipping, virtual bolus, and skin flash plans was 55.6 (54.1-56.4), 52.4 (52.0-53.0), and 53.6 (52.6-54.6) Gy, respectively. The clipping method is not sufficient for breast IMRT. The virtual bolus and skin flash methods were more robust optimization methods according to our analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38265521What 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.