ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Fluence smoothing evaluation for whole-breast automatically generated treatment plans.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- The smoothing factor in breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy: dosimetric impact and a predictive model of plan acceptability.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Fluence smoothing evaluation for whole-breast automatically generated treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to identify the fluence smoothing threshold that preserves the dosimetric quality of planning for breast cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted automated treatment planning for 60 breast cancer patients using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface. The plans included four-field IMRT, emphasizing smoothing weight combinations while maintaining a 4:3 aspect ratio between the X and Y directions. Four weight sets (40 × 30, 100 × 75, 150 × 115.2, and 200 × 150) were tested, resulting in four plans per patient. A total dose of 40.05 Gy over 15 fractions was prescribed. Optimization weigths were dynamically adjusted based on dosimetric evaluations, with the maximum coverage priority set at 200. Statistical analyses were used to assess the dosimetric data.
resultsThe median planning target volume (PTV) coverage varied across smoothing levels, with default smoothing (40 × 30) providing superior median PTV coverage. Lung constraints showed significant differences mainly at higher smoothing levels. Heart constraints exhibited less variation between smoothing levels, with significant differences primarily in the maximum and mean doses for right-sided patients and between default and higher smoothing levels for left-sided patients. No significant differences were observed in contralateral breast constraints among all smoothing levels, except at the maximum level for right-sided patients. Monitor units decreased with increasing smoothing weight, showing significant differences between default and other settings. For right-sided patients, the median number of monitor units varied from 1346 (40 × 30) to 754 (200 × 150), and for left-sided patients, from 1333 (40 × 30) to 804 (200 × 150). Chi-square tests revealed differences in dose constraint adherence between default and maximum smoothing levels, particularly in target coverage.
conclusionOur findings suggest that using a ratio of smoothing weights to target priorities between 1:1.5 and 1:1.6 leads to a favorable balance between complexity and dosimetric plan quality, with no significant impacts on dose constraint adherence.
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.