ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Improvement of plan quality in whole-breast radiation following BCS using feasibility DVH by less-experienced planners.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Variability in plan quality of radiotherapy is commonly attributed to the planner's skill rather than technological parameters. While experienced planners can set reasonable parameters before optimization, less experienced planners face challenges. This study aimed to assess the quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with left-sided breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery. Twenty-eight patients requiring whole-breast irradiation were randomly selected for inclusion. Each patient underwent two VMAT treatment plans: one optimized by an experienced planner (VMAT-EXP group) and the other designed by a less experienced planner using feasibility dose-volume histogram (FDVH) parameters from PlanIQ (VMAT-FDVH group). Both plans aimed to deliver a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Dosimetry parameters for the PTV and organs at risk (OARs) were compared between the two groups. Both the VMAT-EXP and VMAT-FDVH groups met the clinical plan goals for PTV and OARs. VMAT-FDVH demonstrated a PTV coverage and homogeneity comparable to those of VMAT-EXP. Compared to VMAT-EXP plans, VMAT-FDVH plans resulted in a significant reduction in the mean ipsilateral lung dose, with an average decrease of 0.9 Gy (8.5 Gy vs. 7.6 Gy, P < 0.001). The V5Gy and V20Gy of the ipsilateral lung were also reduced by 3.2% and 1.8%, respectively. Minor differences were observed in the heart, contralateral lung, breast, and liver. Personalized objectives derived from the feasibility DVH tool facilitated the generation of acceptable VMAT plans. Less experienced planners achieved lower doses to the ipsilateral lung while maintaining adequate target coverage and homogeneity. These findings suggest the potential for the effective use of VMAT in in patients with left-sided breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery, especially when guided by feasibility DVH parameters.
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.